Smt. Kumudni v. State Of Raj. & Others

BY THE COURT

By an order dated 30th November, 1988/02nd December, 1988 appointment was granted to the petitioner as Teacher on contract basis. During currency of the contract for appointment, the petitioner was sent on deputation to the Women Development Agency as Pracheta. She was repartriated to the Panchayat Samiti, Simalwara under an order dated 19 August, 1994 passed by the Project Director, District Women Development Agency, Dungarpur. After repatriation, the petitioner was terminated from service on 08 September, 1994. By another order dated 23rd December, 1999, the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Simalwara reemployed the petitioner as Teacher Grade-III on regular basis. By this petition for writ, the petitioner is claiming a direction for respondents to treat herself in services of Panchayat Samiti, Simalwara from 30 November, 1988 i.e the date of her initial appointment. The petitioner has also claimed continuity in service and other ancillary benefits for the term commencing from 08 September, 1994 to 30 December, 1999, the period for which the petitioner remained out of employment.

It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that appointment of the petitioner with the Panchayat Samiti, Simalwara was made under an order dated 30 November, 1988 and she was discontinued from service on 08 September, 1994 without any just and valid reason. The respondents subsequently by order dated 23 December, 1999 reinstated her in service and as such, she is entitled to be treated in services of the Panchayat Samiti from the date of her initial appointment i.e 30 November, 1988.

I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. The appointment of the petitioner, at the first instance, under order dated 30 November, 1988 was de hors the Rules, as such, no right accrued in her favour for claiming regularisation of service on the post concerned. It appears that appointment of the petitioner even under the order dated 23 December, 1999 was made by the respondent Panchayat Samiti without holding any process of selection, hence, her appointment under the order aforesaid also appears to be de hors the Rules. No right, as such, is created in favour of petitioner for claiming regularisation and continuity in service from 30 November, 1988.

The petition for writ is having no merit and the same is dismissed.