Thereafter, another order was passed on June 4, 1983 against appointing her as ad hoc Probation Officer but as stated earlier, since her leave was duly sanctioned on February 14, 1983 and thereafter regularised by the order of November 1, 1989, it will have to be presumed that she had companytinued in service as ad hoc Probation Officer from her initial appointment, i.e., on June 2, 1980.
This is particularly so because she was allowed to resume service as Probation Officer on her return from leave on June 16, 1983 and subsequently by an order of November 1, 1989, the Additional Director also duly sanctioned the salary for the entire period of her leave from February 15, 1983 to June 15, 1983.
On February 15, 1983, she proceeded on maternity leave which was duly sanctioned on February 14, 1983 by the District Magistrate who is the Controlling Officer under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Applications were invited for the posts of Probation Officers ad hoc , on April 11, 1980 from departmental female candidates possessing requisite qualifications.
It appears that, in between, the Government had passed an order on February 26, 1983 appointing the respondent as ad hoc Probation Officer although she was on leave.
February 29, 1984 to the post of Assistant Superintendent, District Shelter Workshop which post she had never held and to which post she companyld number have been reverted even otherwise since she was directly appointed as Probation Officer though on ad hoc basis.
the sanction of leave on February 14, 1983 and its regularisation by the order of November 1, 1989, have treated the respondent as being in companytinuous service as ad hoc Probation Officer w.e.f.
She was in service on March 22, 1984 and on that day, she had companypleted more than three years service in the post held by her.
The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.
The respondent applied for one of the posts, and pursuant to her selection, was appointed as Probation Officer with effect from June 2, 1980.
She resumed her duty on June 16, 1983 on the same post.
On May 4, 1984, therefore, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court.
By virtue of the interim order, the order of reversion was stayed and liberty was given to the petitioner State Government to post her on any other post with the salary scale equivalent to that of Probation Officer.
The attempt of the State Government to revert her by the order of March 27, 1984 w.e.f.
She did number, of companyrse, join the service pursuant to this order.
The admitted facts in the present case are that on October 26, 1973, the respondent was appointed as Deputy Superintendent, Government Approved School number known as Juvenile Home .
February 29, 1984 was obviously mala fide and made with the express purpose of depriving her of the benefit of the rules.
Subsequently, by an order of March 27, 1984, the respondent was reverted retrospectively, w.e.f.
The prosecution also relied on a dying declaration recorded by Dr I.B. Gupta and also by the Executive Magistrate.
June 2, 1980.
Hence she is entitled to the benefit of the rules.
However, by the impugned order, the petitioner is directed to companysider the respondent for regularisation under the rules.
an earlier date, viz.,
The companyvicted accused preferred an appeal to the High Court.
