SURINDER KUMARI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for issurance of writ of certiorari to quash the order of termination of the services of the petitioner dated 16.12.1994 vide Annexure P-2.

(2.) The petitioner was selected as Clerk-cum-Steno Typist (Punjabi) and she was appointed as such vide letter of appointment Annexure P-1 and allotted to the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur. Accordingly, she joined the service on 13.9.1994. According to the letter of her appointment, the period of probation was two years. While so, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 16.12.1994. The petitioner in this writ petition is challenging the order of termination of her services dated 16.12.1994 vide Annexure P-2. Annexure P-1 is the order of appointment of the petitioner as Clerk-cum-Steno Typist. In this order of appointment, it is clearly mentioned in that the appointment is against a regular post which is likely to be abolished at any time and this has no guarantee for regular service. Annexure P-2 is the order of termination of services of the petitioner wherein it is mentioned as follows:-

(3.) In the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, it is stated that the post was filled up in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur and the work of the District Consumer Forum is of quasi judicial nature and the petitioner was required to know Stenography in English, but the petitioner does not know Stenography in English. Therefore, the services of the petitioner were not required in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and her services were rightly terminated. When the services of the petitioner were no longer required as she did not possess the requisite qualifications namely Typing and Stenography in English, I do not find any thing wrong in terminating the services of the petitioner. It is clear from the letter of appointment that the services of the petitioner are not regular and she has not been regularly appointed and it is also mentioned therein that her services can be terminated at any time on abolition of the post. The order of termination clearly shows that services of the petitioner are no longer required in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur. There is no illegality in the impugned order of the termination,