S.P. Goyal, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed as a J.B.T. teacher on Nov. 10, 1975 in Government High School, Dhandra, district Ludhiana on ad hoc basis. She continued to serve against that post till Jan. 19, 1979. Thereafter she was relieved from this post and given afresh temporary appointment vide Annexure R-1 dated Jan. 18. 1979 against a similar post in Government Primary School, Milkewal (Machhiwaral). She, however, did not join there. This petition was filed on Oct. 3, 1979 by her for a direction to the respondents to take her back in service on regular basis in accordance with the policy letter of the Government, Annexure P-2, dated May 3, 1977. The case of the petitioner is that she had completed one year's service on March 31, 1977 and, therefore, was entitled 10 be appointed on regular basis irrespective of the fact whether she was in service or not after the said date The case of the respondents is that according to letter, Annexure P-2, the services of ad hoc employees could be regularised only if there was a permanent vacancy available. In the district of Ludhiana, in the year 1977, 64 permanent vacancies were available and accordingly the services of 64 ad hoc employees were regularised. The remaining ad hoc employees were, however, allowed to continue in service on temporary basis and whenever any vacancy occurred, they were made permanent against that vacancy. As the petitioner did not join on temporary basis, she was no more in service and the question of making her permanent against any post could not arise.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner in the first instance contended that she never left the job and in fact she was relieved from the post in Government High School, Dhandra, without further telling her where she was to join. For this argument, there is no basis in the petition In the written statement filed by the State, it has been categorically stated that she was given an appointment letter on temporary basis vide Annexure R-1 but she did not join of her own accord. No reply has be n filed by the petitioner to controvert this averment. I have, therefore, do choice but to hold that it was the petitioner who of her own did not join the post which was offered to her on a temporary basis, as far as the policy letter of the Government, Exhibit P-2 is concerned, it relates only to the vacancies which were available when this letter was issued The vacancies which were to fail vacant thereafter are not within the purview of this letter and the ad hoc employees serving then have no right against such post because of this letter As at the relevant time only 64 permanent vacancies were available, the services of the same number of employees were regularised. Consequently the petitioner could not make any claim under this Policy letter The learned counsel, however, urged that in view of subsequent letters Annexures P-4 and P-5, even those employees who were not in service at any time after March 31, 1977 were also entitled to the benefit of Annexure P-2. There is no dispute with this proposition if a permanent post was available at the relevant time, an ad hoc employee who had been discharged after March 31, 1977 was entitled to it and his services were to be regularised though he was not in service when the matter was considered by the Government. But no such situation is available here. On the contrary, the case of the petitioner was duly considered and she was approved for absorption as a regular employee but it could not be done because of the nonavailability of a permanent vacancy. So the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit under Anuexure P-2.
(3.) In the result, this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;