(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Supervisor under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme on July 26,1991. A copy of the order of appointment has been produced as Annexure P.l with the writ petition. A perusal of this order shows that the appointment was "purely temporary on adhoc basis for a period of nine months or till a regular candidate from SSS Board, Haryana, joins duty, whichever is earlier." The period of nine months expired on April 30, 1992. The petitioners services were terminated in accordance with the terms of appointment. The petitioners grievances are that in terms of the instructions issued by the Government vide letter dated Oct. 15, 1971, she was entitled to continue working on adhoc basis till persons recommended by the Subordinate Services Selection Board were available for appointment on regular basis.
(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been pointed out that the Subordinate Services Selection Board had advertised the posts of Supervisors in March, 1991. The petitioner chose not to apply and compete. Thereafter, the Board sponsored 35 candidates on Dec. 20, 1991. Since the petitioner had not competed for the post, her name was not considered or sponsored by the Board. Her services had been terminated in strict conformity with the terms of appointment. With regard to the instructions dated Oct. 15,1971, it has been pointed out that these were superseded vide letter dated Feb. 5, 1990 wherein it was clearly mentioned that "no adhoc appointment should be continued beyond nine months in any case....."
(3.) Admittedly, the petitioners appointment was on purely adhoc basis. She could have continued for a maximum period of nine months only. It has not been alleged or shown that the termination at the expiry of nine months was in violation of the terms of appointment or any rule.