URMILA CHAUHAN Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she did her M.A. in Music (Vocal), in the year 2003, followed by M.Phil. in Music in the year 2004. She thereafter did her Ph.D in Music (Vocal) in the year 2014 from Himachal Pradesh University. She qualified UGC NET examination twice in the year 2004 and 2005 and also State Level Eligibility test in the year 2004. She also passed Sangeet Prabhakar examination from Prayag Sangeet Samiti Allahabad in the year 2004 as well as All India Written Test for teachers conducted by Army Welfare Education Society in the year 2009. Respondent-Society advertised the post of TGT Music in the year 2006. The petitioner participated in the selection process undertaken and being successful was appointed as TGT Music from 8th April, 2006 to 31st March, 2007. She thereafter was again subjected to the selection process and was appointed as TGT Music from 9th April, 2007 to 31st March, 2008. In the year 2008, respondent-Society again advertised the post of TGT Music and petitioner being successful in the interview was again offered appointment on temporary basis from 08.04.2008 to 31st March, 2009. She was again subjected to selection process in the year 2009, and being successful, was again offered appointment as TGT Music on contract basis vide letter dated 01.04.2009 from 03.04.2009 to 02.04.2012. The petitioner was thereafter engaged on contractual basis from 10.04.2012 to 09.04.2015. She was engaged from 17.04.2015 to 16.04.2016 and from 25.04.2016 to 24.4.2017.

(3.) According to the petitioner, she had submitted various representations praying for her regularization but as the services of the petitioner were not being regularized, despite her being in service of respondent-Society for more than a decade, she filed present writ petition praying for issuance of the directions to the said respondent to regularize her services. It was further pleaded in the writ petition that on account of her being in family way, she had sought maternity leave, which stood granted in her favour, and she was apprehending that respondent-Society may engage someone else by not granting extension to her services, and therefore, a prayer was made that during the pendency of the petition, no other person be appointed in her place. It is on this background that this writ petition stood filed. The petition was filed in the Court on 17th of March, 2017.