NEENA GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the advertisement notice whereby posted of demonstrators were notified, it was indicated that this would be a tenure pose and this tenure would be determinable in terms of condition No. 1 mentioned in the said notice. This advertisement is dated 23rd June 87. The prescription of this tenure is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. For facility of reference, the condition No. (i) in the aforesaid advertisement notification is being reproduced below:

(2.) THE further fact is that sanction was accorded to the appointment of the petitioner as demonstrator in the department of Anatomy, Medical College, Jammu, on adhoc basis for the period of six months or till selection is made by the competent authority. Which ever event was to happen earlier was to operate. This order was issued on 21st July 87. This was been placed on the record as annexure P.2. Thereafter, the appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner. This is dated 20th Oct 87. This order has been placed on the file an annexure P.3. The relevant paragraph and terms and conditions are noticed below:

(3.) THE petitioner felt aggrieved of inclusion of condition (i) in the order dated 23rd Sept 88. She filed a writ petition in this court. This bears No. SWP 750/90. In the above writ petition, a limited argument was raised. The grievance of the petitioner was that the limited of the tenure of the petitioner to the years instead of five years is not apt., This contention of the petitioner found favour with this court. The writ petition of the petitioner was allowed. The order passed by the respondents indicating that the tenure of the petitioner would be two years was held to be not sustainable. The net result was that the petitioner was allowed to continue for a period of five years. This is apparent from the averments made in para 16 of the petition. Petitioner further submits that on 8th April 94, the posts of Demonstrators were again advertised. This notification has been placed on the record as Annexure P. 10. Nothing tangible, however, came out of this advertisement notice and no appointments were made. Somehow or the other, the petitioner felt that her service tenure is likely to be jeopardized. This apprehension of her assumed concrete shape when another advertisement notice was issued at 1st Feb. 96. This has led the petitioner to approach this court. It is submitted: