SEEMA SHARMA Vs. LOKAYUKTA HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No. 2 has issued an advertisement No. 11/2007 on 12.07.2007, whereby applications were invited for filling up the posts of Junior Scale Stenographers. Petitioner participated in the selection process. Petitioner's name was recommended by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 1 on 07.10.2008. However, the petitioner was offered appointment on contract basis. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted her joining on 01.01.2009 and an agreement was also signed on 01.01.2009. Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the action of respondent No. 1 to appoint the petitioner on contract basis instead of regular basis is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He then contended that the entire selection process commencing from advertisement to the recommendation, was for regular post and not for contractual post.

(2.) Mr. Pramod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 3, has vehemently argued that the appointment of the petitioner on contractual post has been made as per policy decision, dated 12.12.2003. He also argued that since the petitioner has already joined her duties on contract basis, the principles of acquiescence and waiver would apply.

(3.) Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that the recommendation of the petitioner's name for appointment to the post of Junior Scale Stenographer was made by respondent No. 1 strictly as per the requisition.