MANJU MENARIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 10. 4. 2001 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ order or direction the impugned order dated 18. 2. 97 (Annex. P/7) passed by Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Nimbaheda (respondent No. 3) by which the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that she was pregnant be quashed.

(2.) THE facts as put forward by the petitioner are as under: (i) That the petitioner possessed requisite qualifications to be appointed on the post of Primary School Teacher, Gr. III under the provisions of Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. (ii) That an advertisement dated 2. 7. 96 was issued inviting applications for 425 posts of Primary School Teacher. THE petitioner also submitted an application form duly filled in up within stipulated time before the competent authority which was verified and the same was found to be in order. (iii) That a select list was prepared by the district Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh (respondent No. 2) in which name of the petitioner was placed at serial No. 183 out of 425 candidates who were selected. the petitioner was called for interview vide letter dated 18. 9. 96 (Annex. P/1) and after the interview and verification of the documents from the originals, a final select list was prepared in which again the name of the petitioner was placed at serial No. 183 out of 425 candidates. THE respondent No. 2 while exercising powers conferred under Section 89 (6) of the Act of 1994, selected the petitioner and the petitioner was allotted for appointment to Panchayat Samiti, Nimbaheda. In accordance with the provisions of Act of 1994, an order of appointment dated 21. 12. 96 (Annex. P/2) appointing the petitioner on the post of Teacher Grade III on probation for a period of two years was issued. In this order of appointment, the name of the petitioner has been shown at serial No. 6. (iv) That thereafter a medical certificate dated 31. 12. 96 (Annex. P/3) was issued by the Incharge Medical Officer, Nimbaheda whereby the petitioner was declared medically fit to be appointed on the post of Teacher Grade III. (v) That thereafter an order dated 1. 1. 97 (Annex. P/4) was issued by the Vikas Adhikari (respondent No. 3) directing the Head Master, Primary School, Sangari that the documents of the petitioner had been verified, therefore, she may be taken on duty and the information to this effect may also be submitted to respondent No. 3. (vi) That a notice dated 12. 2. 97 (Annex. P/5) was issued to the petitioner stating therein that as per the medical certificate, the present position of the petitioner was shown NIL, but it was felt that she was pregnant, and therefore, she was directed to submit a fresh medical certificate of a Female Medical Officer within three days. (vii) In compliance of aforesaid direction, a medical certificate dated 13. 2. 97 (Annex. P/6) was submitted by the petitioner and that was issued by a gynecologist and that certificate reads as under: " It is certify that Manju Menariya having pregnancy, according to her statement her LMP is 17. 8. 96 and expected date of delivery will be 24. 5. 97. At present according to examination she is pregnant and size of utrus is 24 vol. i. e. 6 months pregnancy otherwise she is normal and fit to do her duties. " (viii) That after receiving the medical certificate dated 13. 2. 97 (Annex. P/6), the impugned order dated 18. 2. 97 (Annex. P/7) was issued by Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Nimbaheda by which services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was in violation of the Rules and and she submitted a wrong certificate on the point that though she was pregnant, but this fact was not mentioned in the earlier certificate (Ex. P/3) dated 13. 12. 96. Hence, this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer.

(3.) THROUGH notice dated 12. 2. 97, the respondent No. 3 came to know that the petitioner was a pregnant lady, therefore, respondent No. 3 asked her to get her medical examination afresh by a female doctor and she submitted medical certificate dated 13. 2. 97 (Annex. P/6) on 13. 2. 97 in which she was found pregnant by six months and apart from that she was found fit to do the duties and the contents of medical certificate dated 13. 2. 97 (Annex. P/6) have already been quoted above at page 3.