Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 38371 of 2010 Petitioner :- Rajni Misrha Respondent :- Chief Executive Officer Nd Others Petitioner Counsel :- S.K. Dwivedi Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,N. Mishra Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N. Mishra, learned counsel for
the respondents No. 1 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2009 by which the claim of
the petitioner for appointment has been rejected. It appears that the petitioner
was e engaged for some times in the Khadi Gram Udyog on a contract basis at
Dehradun. Her engagement was terminated on 03.10.2000. Petitioner kept
mum and has not challenged the order or action of the respondents. In 2009, a
writ petition was filed before this Court with a prayer that her representation
is pending. This Court on 02.07.2009 without expressing any opinion on
merits, has directed the authority to decide the representation of the petitioner.
Now by the order impugned, which is under challenge the Comptent
Authority while considering the claim of the petitioner has held that petitioner
was engaged on a contract basis and her services were terminated on
03.10.2000. After that she has not worked in any of the unit of the Khadi
Gram Udyog. Further her appointment was in Dehradun, which is admiteddly
comes under the State of Uttranchal. In such circumstances, the Competent
Authority has held that no relief can be granted to the petitioner and the
representation of the petitioner was rejected.
After perusing the record, in my opinion the representation of the petitioner
has rightly been rejected holding therein that her appointment was only on a
contract basis. It is settled law that an appointment on a contract basis will not
accrue any right to a person, who has been disengaged after the contract
period is over. Further the work place of the petitioner is beyond the territory
of the State of U.P., therefore, the Authority sitting in the State of U.P. cannot
consider the claim of the petitioner and it is only the Authority sitting in the
State of Uttranchal can consider the claim of the petitioner.
In the aforesaid facts, I find no merit in the writ petition.
It is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 7.7.2010
Sazia