SURAJ BHUTRA Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated July 26,1983 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant in this Court.

(2.) THE appellant, Miss Suraj Bhutra, along with four other persons was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on urgent, ad hoc and temporary basis for a period of 6 months from she date she joined her duties, by the order of the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court dated February 2', 1982. One of the conditions, subject to which the appointment of the appellant was made, was that her service was liable to be terminated at any time, without notice and further that she would have to appear in the recruitment test for regular appointment. The appellant was directed to appear at a type test along with 36 other persons by the order dated June 2, 1982. The appellant's case was that although the result of the type test was never declared, yet, by the order dated August 23, 1982 her service was terminated with effect from August 24, 1982. The service of another Lower Division Clerk, Ashok Kumar Purohit appointed along with the appellant was also terminated by the very same order dated August 23, 1982. Subsequently, by an order dated September 27, 1982 the service of 44 Lower Division Clerks, whose names were specified in that order and whose term of ad hoc/temporary appointment had expired, was extended upto December 31, 1982. The appellant's grievance was that some of the employees who appeared along with her for the type -test in pursuance of the order dated June 2, 1982 were also allowed extension by the order dated September 7, 1982, while the service of the appellant was terminated without assigning any reason. The appellant also submitted that respondent No. 2 was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk, on an ad hoc temporary basis, in the office of the Rajasthan High Court after the appellant was so appointed, but the respondent No. 2 was allowed to continue in service and his term of employment was extended by the order dated September 27, 1982 although he did not pass the type test. It was also submitted by the appellant that other persons similarly situated and who had not passed the type test were continued in service of the High Court, yet the appellant was arbitrarily picked out and her service was terminated and that discrimination was apparent in the manner in which the appellant was treated in the matter of termination of her employment.

(3.) THE main contention advanced on behalf of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that out of large number of persons who were appointed temporarily or in ad hoc capacity on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Rajasthan High Court the service of some were retained while some others including the appellant were arbitrarily picked up and their services were terminated without assigning any reason and thus, the treatment meted out to the appellant was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge negatived the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and dismissed the writ petition.