SMT. PREM LATA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Smt. Prem Lata was appointed as Junior Scale Stenographer on ad hoc basis on her name being sent for such appointment by the Employment Exchange, Ludhiana. She joined her post at Ludhiana on 7th January, 1975. She was relieved of her duties on 7th July, 1975 but she was re-appointed at Patiala in the Office of the Deputy Director Local Bodies, Punjab, on the same post and in the same grade on 1st August, 1975. She was transferred from Patiala office to the office of the Deputy Director, Local Bodies, Ludhiana on 29th July, 1977. She was allegedly required to report for duty on the very day i.e., 29th July, 1977 but, so in the case pleaded in the petition, she was prevented from joining her duties by th Deputy Director, Local Bodies, in order to safeguard the interest of another Junior Scale Stenographer Miss Kuldip Kaur who was also appointed on ad hoc basis, and whose services would have been terminated if the petitioner had been permitted to join at Ludhiana. On the alleged intervention of the Director of Local Bodies, Chandigarh, she succeeded in joining her duties at Ludhiana on 4th August, 1977 but her services were again terminated on 13th February, 1978 vide order (Annexure P.4).

(2.) It has been further alleged by the petitioner that in view of Presidential Order dated 3rd May, 1977 (Annexure P.3) her services should have been regularised and not terminated.

(3.) In the joint return filed on behalf of the State and the Director, Local Bodies, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and in separate returns filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 it has been pleaded that the departmental Screening Committee, envisaged in the aforesaid Presidential notification, considered the case of the petitioner for regularisation in terms of the said notification. As she did not satisfy the conditions laid down in the said notification, her services were not regularised and that the order Annexure P.4 dated 13th February, 1978 terminating the petitioner's service was rightly passed. It has been pointedly mentioned in the joint written statements of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions of sub-clause (1) of clause 1 of para 3 and sub-paras 4 and 5 of that para of the notification.