- (1.) Miss Kusum Malhotra through present petition filed by her under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks quashing of order dated June 6,1986 (annexure P-6) vide which earlier order regularising her in service was cancelled.
(2.) The facts of the case reveal that the beginning petitioner was appointed as Typist-cum-Clerk with effect from August 1,1983, on ad hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs. 540-1050/- for a period of 89 days. Her appointment was extended from time to time, each time for a period of 89 days and in the manner aforesaid she continued in service upto August l985.Thereafter, she was appointed for a period of six months. On the representation made by her that she had put in continuous service for a period of about three years, vide order dated February 4, 1986, here services were regularised. She was placed on probation for a period of two years. However, suddenly on June 6, 1986 another letter was issued vide which order regularising her in service was cancelled. It is this order, as has been indicated in the earlier part of this judgment, which has been challenged through present petition.
(3.) It is pleaded and so argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that while passing order aforesaid no notice was ever issued nor she was heard in the matter. Not only that number of clerks, who were appointed on ad hoc basis in the same manner in which petitioner was appointed later in point of time, were regularised in service and are still continuing. With a view to elaborate, it has been pleaded that one Sunita, who was junior to petitioner is still continuing in service as a Clerk on regular basis.;