JAIN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE challenge in this intra-court appeal is the order dated 3rd November, 2009 passed by Single Bench, whereby writ petition filed by petitioner/appellant, against her termination order from service, has been dismissed. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Manager (Mahila) under Rajasthan Women Dairy Project for a period of one year on monthly consolidated amount of Rs.3000/- vide order dated 17th February, 1992. However, as per clause (ii) of the agreement executed between the parties, the term of appointment was 2 years or till expiry of the project, whichever is earlier, purely on adhoc basis. It was also mentioned that on expiry of tenure of contract, the employee will have no claim in lieu of services rendered by him. The services of the petitioner/appellant were terminated/dispensed with vide order dated 8th September, 1995, which was challenged before Single Bench. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that although the appellant was appointed initially for a period of one year and as per term of contract, the tenure of appellant was 2 years or till the expiry of the project period, whichever is earlier, but the project was continued and other similarly situated persons were allowed to continue, therefore, the services of appellant could not and should not have been dismissed. It is further submitted that the petitioner placed on record certain documents along with rejoinder and from the said documents, it was proved that project was continued and other persons were allowed to continue. Therefore, Single Bench has wrongly dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed that the order of Single Bench be set aside and writ petition of the petitioner be allowed. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order of Single Bench and submitted that the petitioner was appointed only on contract basis and since the project was completed, therefore, services of petitioner were rightly dispensed with. He further submitted that the documents placed on record along with rejoinder were examined by Single Bench and it was found that they were not related with the project in which petitioner was appointed and, therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner has rightly been dismissed. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined their submissions in the light of reasons assigned by Single Bench for dismissal of the writ petition. We have also examined the averments made by parties and their pleadings and other documents available on record.
(3.) FROM the averments and documents, it is clear that petitioner was initially appointed for a period of one year on contract basis on monthly consolidated amount. As per term of contract, the period of contract was two years or till the expiry of project, whichever is earlier. In the reply to writ petition, it was clearly mentioned that project, in which, petitioner was appointed has come to an end. Although certain documents were placed on record, but from the same, it is clear that the same were not in respect of the project in which petitioner was appointed. Learned Single Judge has also opined and observed that from these documents, it cannot be presumed that other persons, who have been allowed to continue were in the same project in which petitioner was appointed. The services of the petitioner were dispensed with way back in September, 1995. In the order dated 8th September, 1995, it is specifically mentioned that the period of appointment came to an end on 31st March, 1995. However, as per order dated 5th June, 1995, a months' notice was also given and services of appellant were dispensed with w.e.f. 8th October, 1995. We find no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned in the writ petition. Learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. The reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for dismissal of the writ petition are absolutely legal and justified and no interference in the same is called for. In view of above discussions, we do not find any merit in this intra-court appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.;