SUNIL AMBWANI,J. - (1.) Heard R.B. Trivedi for petitioner and Sri Chandan Sharma for respondent No. 5. Learned standing counsel appears for State respondents.
(2.) BRIEF facts, giving rise to this writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Stenographer/Typist, on 7 -5 -1973, on temporary basis by Regional Food Controller, Kanpur. By a subsequent order dated 26 -7 -1973 the Regional Food Controller, Kanpur appointed her on temporary basis on a leave vacancy of Sri M.C. Nigam, Stenographer, who had gone on 35 days earned leave. By a third order dated 15 -9 -1973, the Regional Food Controller allowed her to continue her as Sri M.C. Nigam had not returned back after availing the leave. By a fourth order dated 17 -5 -1975, the petitioner was promoted from the post of Clerk to the post of Stenographer and that on 12 -7 -1975 the petitioner was reverted back to the post of Clerk III grade. The petitioner was again promoted as Stenographer by the Regional Food Controller, Kanpur on 2 -2 -1977. The petitioner submitted a resignation letter to the Regional Food Controller, Kanpur, giving her circumstances, and stating that she does not want to serve w.e.f. 8 -8 -1977 and that her resignation may be accepted. This resignation was accepted on 6 -8 -1977 and the petitioner was relieved on 8 -8 -1977. It appears that the petitioner again approached the Regional Food Controller, Kanpur and that by order dated 2 -5 -1980, the petitioner and seven other persons were appointed as Clerk Grade IV on 30 -6 -1981 on temporary basis and that subsequently after closing of the scheme for procurement of foodgrains in which the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis, her services were terminated.
(3.) THE petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 13541/1/995, which was disposed of with a direction to decide her representation. This representation was decided by the Regional Food Controller, Kanpur on 15 -5 -1995, which was challenged by the petitioner in a second Writ Petition No. 10734/1996 which was dismissed on 27 -3 -1996. This Court found that the petitioner's appointment was seasonal in nature and was made for specific duration. She did not acquire any right on the basis of such seasonal appointment in the year 1980 -81 and that the Government Order dated 13 -10 -1982 did not confer any right in her favour to claim re -employment. This Court gave her liberty to apply to Regional Food Controller to engage her on seasonal basis/temporary basis, if there is no legal impediment in such appointment.;