ARUNA VERMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order passed by the respondents dated 3/12/2009 (Ann.10) whereby, explanation of the petitioner was called for, order dated 9/12/2009 (Ann.11) whereby, services of the petitioner were terminated and she was relieved and the order dated 5/2/2010 (Ann.14) whereby, contractual term of Lecturers appointed was extended from 28/2/2010 to 30/4/2010 pursuant to the orders passed by this Court however on the original terms and conditions of contract.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on contract basis vide order dated 30/11/2007 (Ann.1) from 30/11/2007 till 28/2/2008 or till the availability of duly selected candidates from the RPSC, on a consolidated payment of Rs.7950/- per month. Her services were initially discontinued vide order dated 28/2/2008 (Ann.2) however, she was again appointed vide order dated 21/7/2008 (Ann.4) on the same terms and conditions till 28/2/2009. This appointment was also made on contract basis and for which, a separate contract was executed between the petitioner and the respondents. Thereafter, her services were again terminated for the second time on 28/2/2009 (Ann.6). Then, petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 28/7/2009 pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 22/5/2009 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2711/2009 (Jagdish Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). Her services were then again discontinued third time vide order dated 9/12/2009 (Ann.11), which is the last order and which is subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) Shri Rajvir Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this Court while deciding batch of writ petitions in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5238/2009 (Ms.Savita Samriya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 22/5/2009 held the termination of term of contract of the petitioners during the continuation of the availability of the vacancies of College Lecturers arbitrary and illegal and respondents were restrained from appointing substitute College Lecturers for the session 2009-10 against the vacancies on which the petitioners were appointed. As regards continuation of the petitioners after reopening of the colleges from 1/7/2009, the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the respective petitioners on priority basis for the session 2009-10 and pass appropriate orders. It was however held that petitioners shall not be entitled to the fixed amount as referred to in the appointment letter for the period of closure of the respective colleges for summer vacations.