LAWS(RAJ)-2015-3-229

MUNIA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Decided On March 30, 2015
Munia Sharma Appellant
V/S
State of Rajasthan And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner after having successfully participated in the recruitment process for appointment to the post of Primary School Teacher, in response to the advertisement published by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'Commission'), in the year 2004, was accorded appointment vide order dated 25th April, 2005. However, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 29th June, 2005, and therefore, instituted the instant writ proceedings praying for the following relief(s): - -

(2.) SHORN off unnecessary details, the indispensable material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein needs to be first noticed. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process in response to the advertisement issued by the respondent -Commission in the year 2004. The result of the recruitment process involved herein, was declared on 2nd June, 2004. In response to the offer of appointment dated 12th April, 2005, the petitioner joined her duties on 25th April, 2005. However, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 29th June, 2005, without any reason or rhyme. During the pendency of the writ proceedings the State -respondents vide order dated 2nd February, 2006, appointed the petitioner afresh and the petitioner joined her duties, in compliance thereof, on 16th February, 2006.

(3.) MS . Purvi Mathur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application strenuously argued that the petitioner's name found place in the merit order at serial number 19555, as would be evident from the offer of appointment dated 12th April, 2005 (Annexure -2). The offer of appointment was cancelled, terminating the services of the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 29th June, 2005, while retaining persons in service who were far below in the merit list than the petitioner. The petitioner addressed several representations, which evoked no response.