DIPIKABEN R PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order of termination dated 23/04/1986 and for her reinstatement in service with continuity of service with full back-wages. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk by an order dated 20/07/1984 on temporary and ad hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs 260-400 with permissible allowances on 29 days' on ad hoc basis with effect from 20/07/1984. It was also made clear that two conditions that her appointment was made on 29 days' employment basis and secondly, she could be terminated without any notice on availability of candidates from the Collector's office in central recruitment scheme. She continued in service by 19 various orders as mentioned in Annexure "C" till her termination by the order dated 23/04/1986. The petitioner moved an application dated 5-2-1986 before the respondent No. 2 to grant her maternity leave for two months without pay. The respondent passed the following order dated 23-4-1986 terminating her services :-

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's services were terminated only on the ground that she requested for maternity leave without pay. In this respect, in the affidavit-in-reply it is stated that in her absence, it was not possible to run office which is dealing with public at large and in her place, another person was appointed on the same basis of 29 days: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was made purely on temporary and ad hoc basis for a period of 29 days. It was a stop-gap arrangement as regular appointments have to be made under centralised recruitment scheme. As the petitioner was not entitled for any leave, the respondents were justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner and passing the order of termination.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointment made for 29 days has been condemned by the Supreme Court in various cases. It is nothing but exploitation of the public at large by the State authorities. For this purpose, he relied upon the judgment in the case of Ratanlal v. State of Haryana and Ors., reported in 1985 (4)SCC 43, wherein teachers who were appointed on ad hoc basis, it is held as under :