SBC Writ Petition No.4593/09
Tara Panwar v. State of Raj. &ors.
SBC Writ Petition No.4593/09
Tara Panwar v. State of Raj. &ors.
Date of order: 8.5.2009
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
Mr. Kaluram Bhati for the petitioner.
…
Heard learned counsel for the petitioenr.
The petitioner was originally given appointment on contract basis
in Lok Jumbish Project upto 30.6.2008 vide order Annex.1. By order
dated 27.12.2002, the petitioner was given appointment for one year as
trainer. Then according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, she
was absorbed in Sarva Shikhsha Abhiyan Project in the year 2004.
However, said order has not been placed on record. Therefore,
according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, she worked in the
said project upto 31.3.2007 and thereafter, she submitted letter of
resignation and the charge was taken from her on 10.4.2007 in
pursuance of the order passed by the competent authority. The
petitioner’s request for accepting her resignation was forwarded by the
District Education Officer vide Annex.5. However, in the year 2008,
specifically on 6.5.2008, the petitioner submitted that she could not
join the duties because she was sick and her father-in-law also met with
accident. Then again the petitioner submitted representation for giving
her appointment. Then the petitioner could get the order from the
District Education Officer(Training) on 2.3.2009 (Annex.12) for her
SBC Writ Petition No.4593/09
Tara Panwar v. State of Raj. &ors.
appointment, however, that appointment continued till 28.4.2009, as by
communication dated 28.4.2009, she was informed that since financial
sanction has not been given by the Government, therefore, her services
is terminated forthwith.
The petitioner being aggrieved against the order dated 28.4.2009
(Annex.14), has preferred this writ petition.
The facts referred above clearly speak loud and as per the
petitioner herself she was absorbed in another service on contract basis
in another project in the year 2004 and as per the petitioner herself,
she worked upto 31.3.2007 and submitted her resignation letter and did
not work for two years. The respondents, yet appointed the petitioner
vide order dated 2.3.2009. In a case where large number of aspirants are
waiting for the government appointments and other appointments even
on ad hoc basis, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order dated
28.4.2009 because of the fact that the petitioner’s service was on
contract basis. She was given appointment on 2.3.2009 obviously
without there being any financial sanction. The petitioner herself did
not work for long period. The writ is not available to such type of the
petitioner.
The writ petition of the petitioner is, therefore, dismissed.
( PRAKASH TATIA),J.
mlt.