SHOBHA LODHA Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case admittedly, the petitioner was provided appointment temporarily under Children Development Project vide order dated 15.2.2000 and her term of appointment was extended from time to time but finally the term of appointment came to an end on 17.7.2003 and the petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner is claiming right of continuity in service on the ground that the said Project is still going on and respondents are providing appointment on fixed terms basis to various persons.

(2.) If it is so, then, obviously, the case of the petitioner is required to be considered on priority basis.

(3.) In my opinion, if the petitioner's appointment was come to an end by afflux of time because appointment was provided to her temporarily in a project, therefore, on the ground of nonavailability of post and term of appointment comes to an end, then, the petitioner cannot claim any right for continuance of her service. However, the petitioner can very well raise her voice for fresh appointment if the project is still going on and the respondents are providing appointment under the said project.