Decided on April 08,1994

Purnima Das Appellant
District And Sessions Judge, State Of Assam Respondents


J.N. Sarma, J. - (1.)THIS application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 2.5.91 issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Dhubri terminating the temporary appointment of the Petitioner from the post of L.D. Asstt, of the office of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dhubri, This is Annexure -3 to the Writ application. Annexure -3 to the Writ application reads as follows:
The Temporary appointment of Smti. Pumima Das, L.D. Asstt., office of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dhubri is hereby terminated with immediate effect.

The brief facts are as follows:

(2.)THAT the Petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Asstt. on 7.3.91 but released on 3.5.91. The Petitioner thereafter served approximately for a period of 2 years on two occasions in the office of the District & Sessions Judge, Dhubri. The Petitioner was directed to appear in the written test vide order dated 16.6.87 alongwith the other candidates. However, the service of the Petitioner was not regularised. On 14.3.90, the District & Sessions Judge passed an order that her case would be considered when vacancy would occur in the near future. This was a reply to a representation submitted by the petitioner. This is Annexure -1 to the Writ: application. Thereafter, the Petitioner was again appointed as a Lower Division Asstt on 6.3.91. It was stated in the appointment letter as follows:
The appointment is purely temporary and subject to her qualifying in the test and interview for the post to be held later on in due course. She will have no claim whatsoever for future absorption to the post.

Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 2.5.91 her service was terminated. The allegation of the Petitioner was that her service was terminated as because this order was passed in pursuance of Annexure -4 to the Writ Application i.e. a letter order from the Registrar (I & E), Gauhati High Court.

(3.)I have heard Shri D.C. Mahanta, learned Advocate for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents, nor any affidavit -in -opposition has been filed but the record has been produced before this court.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.