LALITA Vs. STATE OF RAJ AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance voiced by the petitioner Lalita in this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India is that she was appointed on the post of L.D.C. along with others on urgent/ad hoc temporary basis for a period of six months or till the regularly selected candidates are available, whichever is earlier vide order dated 25.9.1998 (Annex. l) by respondent- High Court in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3-A of the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953, hereinafter referred-to as the Rules of 1953'. In spite of the fact that the administrative exigency for which she was appointed still exists, her services are sought to be terminated by not extending the term of appointment. It is, thus, prayed that by appropriate writ or direction, the respondent-High Court be directed not to terminate her services and extend the term of appointment till regular tests are conducted by it for recruitment of L.D.Cs. and to allow the petitioner to appear in such test as and when it is held.

(2.) The say of the respondent-High Court is that the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary ad hoc basis for a period of six months. She does not have any legal right to continue on the post of L.D.C. as her appointment comes to an end by afflux of time. The further say of the respondent-High Court is that it is upto the appointing authority to adjudge the administrative exigency and not for the petitioner to visualise the exigency and to claim any right to continue in service.

(3.) S/Shri L.M. Lodha and B.M. Bohra learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner have mainly raised the following contentions: