M.Katju, J. - (1.) Petitioner No. 1 was appointed in ad hoc capacity as a teacher in Central School in July, 1984 and she worked till April 30, 1985. Thereafter she was again appointed in July, 1985 and worked till April 30, 1986. Thereafter the petitioner was again appointed and continued upto January 23, 1988 whereafter she left Assam due to the transfer of her husband to Allahabad. She was again appointed as a teacher in Kendriya Vidhyalaya in ad-hoc capacity in October, 1988 and worked till April 30, 1989: She was again appointed in August 1989 and worked till April 30, 1990 after which her services have not been continued. The grievance of the petitioner No. 1 is that she should be continued as a teacher and her services should be regularised.
(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that the petitioner No. 1 is not entitled to regularisation under the relevant rules. Such regularisation is only done by the Head Quarters of the Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan at Delhi. In my opinion it is correct that regularisation can only be done by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan at Delhi. However, in the supplementary affidavit which has been filed, it has been stated in para 5 that the petitioner No. 1's husband who was a Colonel in the Indian Army expired on January 16, 1992 leaving behind two minor daughters. In para 6 of the supplementary affidavit reference has been made to the Brochure on Terminal Benefits in case of an officer's death in service. In para 32 of the said Brochure, which is Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit, it is mentioned that one dependent of the deceased can be appointed in a Central Government job without intervention of the Employment Exchange and test conducted by the department. In view of this provision the benefits of dying-in-harness Rules have been given to a person like petitioner No. 1
(3.) In my opinion the respondents should have appointed the petitioner No. 1 under the said provision. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sushma Gosain v. Union of India 1990-I-LLJ-169, (1), that for such an appointment under the Dymg-in-Harness Rules a job should be created even if there is no vacancy. Accordingly I direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner No. 1 as a teacher in Central School, Allahabad within one month of production of Certified copy of this judgment.;