SANGEETA PATHAK Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, arises out of the order, dated 25th June, 1991, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil writ petition No. 1858/1991; whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on merits.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filling of this appeal briefly stated, are that in pursuance of the Advertisement issued by the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur vide Notification, dated 12th January, 1990, the petitioner -appellant applied for the post of PBX Operator. She was called for interview which was held at Jodhpur on 3rd March, 1990. Selection Committee interviewd the petitioner alongwith other eligible candidates. The petitioner -appellant was found suitable and appointed as PBX Operator at Jaipur Bench of this Court in the pay -scale of Rs. 950 -1680 for period of six months on temporary basis vide order, dated 5th March, 1990 (Annex. 1). It was stated that the appellant was given extention in terms of her appointment upto 31st December, 1990 (first extension) and thereafter upto 28th February, 1991 (second extension) by another order. The appellant continued to work even after the expiry of period of second extension, i.e., after 28th February, 1991 but no formal order of extension was passed. Thereafter an order dated 26th March, 1991 was issued which was served upon her on 27th March, 1991 vide Annexure 4. By the said order of extension it was stipulated that the appellant who had been appointed as PBX Operator vide order, dated 5th March, 1990 has been granted extension in terms of her appointment upto 31st March, 1991 and no further extension would be granted beyond the said date, i.e., 31st March, 1991.

(3.) IT has been contended in the appeal that no charge -sheet has ever been served upon the appellant and there was no complaint with regard to her work and conduct except the fact that only in the order, dated 11 January, 1991, last extension order Annexure 3, it was mentioned that she should improve her work and behaviour, failing which it may not be possible to extend the term of her temporary appointment. Vide order, dated 26th March, 1991 (Annex. 4) it was made explicitely clear that the term of temporary appointment of the appellant stood extended upto 31st March, 1991 only and no further extension was granted to her beyond the said date. Consequently the services of the appellant stood automaticallly terminated w.e.f. 1st April, 1991.