- (1.) The petitioner herein has filed these two Civil Writ Petitions relating to condition of her appointment and subsequent termination. In Civil Writ Petition No. 13126 of 2000, the petitioner sought quashment of the condition/stipulation in her appointment order dated 23.10.1998, wherein she has been appointed on contractual basis at a consolidated salary. A further direction is sought to treat her as regularly appointed with effect from the date of initial appointment with all consequential benefits, seniority and salary etc. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner was terminated from service vide order dated 21.5.2001. This order came to be assailed in the second Civil Writ Petition No. 13612 of 2001. Since both the matters are interconnected, are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) It is necessary to take note of the relevant facts leading to the filing of these petitions. Respondent No. 1, Shri Mata Mansa Devi Shrine Board, Panchkula, is a statutory Board. The Board in its 5th meeting decided to recruit additional staff against sanctioned post. One post of Accountant, which was available with the Board in the sanctioned regular pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/-, was referred for appointment. A requisition was made to the employment exchange for sending the names of the eligible candidates for the post of Accountant vide requisition dated 8.6.1996. This was followed by a public notice dated 22.6.1998, whereunder the applications were invited from the eligible candidates with qualifications indicated therein. Though, in the requisition sent to the employment exchange the post was shown to be temporary, however, in the public notice, there was no such stipulation. The petitioner claiming to be duly qualified in terms of the advertisement, applied in response thereto to the competent authority. The Board also constituted a Selection Committee vide its order dated 14.7.1998. In all, eight candidates applied and faced the interview before the Selection Committee on 28.8.1998. One Sanjiv Ghai was placed at serial No. 1 in the Select List, whereas the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1 in the waiting list by the Selection Committee. It is the admitted case of the parties that Sanjiv Ghai choose not to join and consequently the petitioner was selected and appointed vide appointment letter dated 22.10.1998. It is also pertinent to note that though the post advertised, was a regular sanctioned post, however, the appointment was made on contractual basis for a period of 89 days and on a consolidated salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month. The order also contains a stipulation that her services can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. It is also not disputed that the petitioner joined the service on 24.10.1998. The petitioner's appointment was extended from time to time, right from the date of her initial appointment till 21.5.2001. The petitioner filed a representation dated 24.6.1999, asking for a regular appointment in view of her selection against a regular post by the competent Selection Committee duly constituted by the employer-respondent and in view of the fact that she was selected by a proper process for selection initiated by the Board. This representation was followed by two more representations dated 6.7.1999 and 30.11.1999. Receiving no response, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 13136 of 2000. This Court, while issuing notice of motion also directed maintenance of status quo till the next date of hearing. It is on the basis of the aforesaid order that the petitioner continued in service. Later on, the order of status quo came to be vacated by this Court vide order dated 13.3.2001. While vacating the ad interim order, this Court also made the following observations :- "However, we are of the view that this is not a fit case in which the interim directions dated 26.9.2000 should continue. Consequently, the interim directions aforesaid are hereby withdrawn. We may observe here that in case the post of Accountant which is to fall vacant on the acceptance of resignation of Shri Rajiv Aggarwal is to be filled up, the case of the petitioner be also considered for appointment against the said post, which will, however, be without prejudice to his rights in the present writ petition." Consequent upon this order, the case of the petitioner was considered by the employer for appointment against the post of Accountant rendered vacant on account of resignation of one Rajiv Aggarwal, who was working with the respondent-employer. The petitioner was communicated vide letter endorsement No. 716 dated 31.8.2005, the following decision :- "It has been decided that her case would be considered only when the case is withdrawn." This fact was brought to the notice of the Court whereupon the Court passed the following order on 16.9.2006 :- "During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner has shown to me a letter written by the Secretary, Shri Mata Mansa Devi Shrine Board, Panchkula, addressed to the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Urban Development Department, Chandigarh, wherein it has been mentioned that the Board has decided that the case of the petitioner would be considered only when the case is withdrawn by the petitioner. Prima facie, this tantamounts to an unfair labour practice. As the respondent Board is ready to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Accountant, therefore, the case of the petitioner shall be considered by the respondent Board within a period of two months from today and the decision taken thereon shall be intimated to the Court. Adjourned to 29.11.2005." Pursuant to this order, the respondents-Board passed an order on 28.11.2005, wherein it has been stated that the letter dated 31.8.2005 was an internal process of the Board and has been issued inadvertently after the petitioner submitted an affidavit to this effect on 12.5.2004, wherein she offered to withdraw the case. It is further stipulated that this has not been the intention of the Board to harass or suppress any legitimate claim or right of the petitioner. The order says that the recruitment in the Board can be by any of the four modes and presently, there is no move to fill up the post. Whenever this post is to be filled up, the Board shall consider the petitioner. It is stated that thereafter, two posts of Accountants in Shri Mata Mansa Devi Shrine Board have been advertised to be filled up on contractual basis for a period of 89 days at a consolidated salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month. While Civil Writ Petition No. 13136 of 2000 was pending, the respondent-Board passed an order dated 21.5.2001, whereby the petitioner's services were dispensed with. The order reads as under :- "Contract period of Smt. Parvinder Mohindru, Accountant is hereby extended from 23.4.2001 to 21.5.2001. Her services are no longer required beyond this date as per the terms and conditions of her appointment letter." This order is made the subject matter of challenge in Civil Writ Petition No. 13612 of 2001. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case. Two important questions arise for consideration : (1) Whether the employer is entitled to appoint the petitioner on contractual basis after having advertised the post for regular appointment and in a regular pay scale and making selection on that basis ? (2) Whether the termination of the petitioner is justified and permissible in law ?
(3.) The respondents in their written statement in response to Civil Writ Petition No. 13136 of 2000 have specifically admitted that the post advertised vide advertisement notice dated 22.6.1998, was a regular post duly sanctioned by the Board. These admissions are contained in preliminary objections as also in paragraph 7 on merits of the reply. However, it has been stated that in view of the financial exigencies it was decided that the post in question be filled up on contractual basis on consolidated salary of Rs. 3000/-, per month for which letter of appointment was issued. The petitioner has accepted the terms and conditions of appointment letter and has waived off her right to challenge the same at this belated stage. However, it is not disputed that the duly sanctioned post was/is available with the respondents and the selection of the petitioner was also meant for appointment against the regular post.;