- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs: (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the letter dated 5.5.2003, vide Memo No. 2308 issued by respondent NO.3, whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated. (ii) For quashing of letter No. 76 dated 23.5.2003 issued by the respondent NO.2 whereby the petitioner has been directed to handover the charge in pursuance of letter dated 5.5.2003. (iii) For a direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date of termination.
(2.) THE main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is, as to whether in absence of any letter/circular the services of the petitioner could have been terminated. It appears that the petitioner has also filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2362 of 2003 for direction upon the respondent to pay her salary w.e.f. April 2001. The petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is working in the territorial jurisdiction of Jharkhand and this Court has jurisdiction to decide it.
(3.) THE counsel for the respondent submits that as many as 53 illegal appointments were made who were terminated from service. According to the learned counsel for the respondent the illegal appointment was made by Smt. Hemlata Yadav on 6.10.1994 without following the due process of appointment selection viz. without advertisement, interview, constitution of Selection Committee, roster clearance etc. and as per the Rule only the Board was made competent to make appointment, subject to availability of vacancy.;