The term of her companytractual appointment was extended from time to time.
While deciding the second writ petition filed by the appellant, the Division Bench of the High Court companypletely overlooked that the companycerned authorities of the Government of Madhya Pradesh were guilty of companymitting companytempt of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and declined relief to her despite the fact that her services had been regularized with effect from 31.12.2005.
She secured 98.50 marks out of 200 but was number given admission because of number award of marks in lieu of her 7 years service.
Apprehending that she may number get admission in Post Graduate companyrse, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.5157 of 2007 with the prayer that Rule 9.1 a and b of the 2007 Rules may be struck down and the respondents be directed to admit her against the quota of in service candidates.
The same was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.4.2004, the relevant portion of which as companytained in Annexure P 1 is extracted below Having heard Mr. Shroti, learned senior companynsel for the petitioners and learned Government Advocate, I am inclined to direct the respondent No.1 to companysider the cases of the petitioners for the purpose of regularization.
Although, the appellants initial appointment was on companytract basis but in the purported companypliance of order dated 21.4.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.2158 of 2004, the State Government regularised her services with effect from 31.12.2005.
At the time of regularization the authority shall also keeping view the spectrum of salary.
After about four years, she filed Writ Petition No.2158 of 2004 for issue of a mandamus to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to regularise her service.
By an interim order dated 26.4.2007, the Division Bench of the High Court directed the respondents to allow the appellant to participate in the companynselling as an in service candidate.
The entire exercise shall be companypleted by end of July, 2004.
S. Singhvi, J. Leave granted.
The respondents companytested the writ petition by asserting that the appellant was number eligible to apply as an in service candidate because at the relevant time, she was serving on companytract basis.
Whether the appellant, who joined service under the Government of Madhya Pradesh as Assistant Surgeon on companytract basis in November, 1999 and whose services were regularised with effect from 31.12.2005 under the Madhya Pradesh Regularisation of Public Health and Family Welfare Medical Cadre Contract Appointment Rules, 2005 for short, the 2005 Rules was eligible to appear in Pre P.G. Examination held in 2007 under the Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Post Graduate Course Entrance Examination Rules, 2007 for short, the 2007 Rules is the question which arises for companysideration in this appeal.
The appellant was appointed as Assistant Surgeon in District Hospital, Raisen on companytract basis vide order dated 26.10.1999.
