CHANDRA GURNANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by way of this writ petition, assails the order dated 20.7.1999 and the order dated 22.7.1999 and prays to declare them null and void by which her services have been dispensed with.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that initially, the petitioner was appointed in Election Department wherefrom she was transferred to Sheep & Wool Department vide order dated 23.12.1989 and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner continued to work on temporary basis. Her services were extended from month to month till her services were dispensed with vide order dated 31.1.1991. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a civil suit before the concerned court and an interim injunction was granted on 26.2.1991. However the interim injunction application was dismissed and the stay was vacated in appeal vide order dated 25.7.1992 and thereafter her services were dispensed with w.e.f. 25.7.1992. The petitioner was again given appointment in the regular pay scale of Rs.650-1690 vide order dated 31.5.1993 against a vacant post and she continued to perform her duties. Vide order dated 20.7.1999, on account of declaring 30 posts of LDCs as abolished, the petitioner was declared surplus and directed to submit his attendance to the General Administrative Department (GAD), the concerned Collector by the impugned order dated 22.7.1999, the order dated 20.7.1999 was withdrawn so far as it related to the petitioner and her services were dispensed with on the ground that her appointment made on the post of LDC dated 31.5.1993 was found to be illegal.

(3.) Learned counsel submits that the order dated 22.7.1999 has been passed ignoring the provisions of Rajasthan Subordinate Ministerial Staff Rules of 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1957") as well as on the ground of not following the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been working from 1989 and further regularly serving as LDC from 31.5.1993. If the petitioner's services are treated as on temporary or adhoc basis, then too, she is entitled to get the benefit of Rule 25(10) of the Rules of 1957, which provides that all those persons, who are appointed as LDC on adhoc basis or daily wages basis from 1.1.1985 to 31.3.1990 and are still working would be entitled to be appointed on regular basis on availability of vacant seats subject to that they pass the performance test for which three chances would be granted to them in a period of three years. Learned counsel submits that no chance was given to the petitioner to appear for a typing test and her appointment was treated as regular from 1993 itself. Now, if the respondents have treated the petitioner's appointment as irregular then too would be at least given three chances to appear in the typing test which were also not given. Learned counsel also further submits that before passing of the order dated 22.7.1999 no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and her services have been terminated alleging that her appointment was wrongful. Thus, the order is required to be set aside.