She was discharged from Nursing Home on 19 January 1990.
The Corporation also made reference to the terms of the declaration as filled in by the petitioner on 25 May 1989 To be filled in by female candidates only in the presence of the Medical examiner Are you married Yes.
The Corporation in the companynter resisted the case stat ing that the petitioners work was number satisfactory and as such under the terms of the appointment she was discharged without numberice and without assigning any reason.
The petitioner was directed to undergo a short term training programme.
vii State the date of last delivery 14th November, 1987.
The High Court refused to interfere with the termination.
When the appeal was listed for preliminary hearing this Court issued numberice for final disposal and made an order as follows The facts of the case companypel us to issue an interim mandamus directing the respondents to put the petitioner back to service and we accordingly issue a direction to the respond ent to reinstate the petitioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In fact, she applied for maternity leave on 27 December 1989 followed by medical certificate dated 6 Janu ary.
On the same day, she was also examined by a lady doctor and found medically fit for the job.
The petitioner to her own knowledge, companyld number have had a men struation cycle on 29 April 1989 as stated by her in the declaration on 25 May 1989.
After successful companypletion of the training she was given an appointment letter dated 25, Sep tember 1989.
The case on hand illustrates this typical atti tude of the Corporation.
She was entitled to be companyfirmed in the service subject to satisfactory work report.
She delivered a full term baby on 11 January 1990.
The petitioner has number appealed to this Court.
On 13 February 1990, the petitioner was discharged from the serv ice.
It was also companytended that the decision to discharge the petitioner from the service of the Corporation was on 2 grounds 1 because of a false declaration given by her at the very initial stage of her service and 2 her work during the period of probation was number satisfactory.
She was called for written test and also for interview.
The petitioner was on leave from 9 December 1989 till 8 March 1990.
If so, please state Your Husbands Name in full occupation Mr. PRADEEP MATHUR, Law Officer, Central Pollution Control Board, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.4.91 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No.
The petitioner took leave from 9 December 1989 till 8 March 1990.
State the date of last menstruation 29th April, 1989.
She was admitted to the Nursing Home of Dr. Hira Lal on 10 January 1990.
Reference was also made to the Instruction 16 issued by the Corporation as to the Medical examination for recruit ment of Class 1II and Class IV staff.
The petitioner moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging that order on the ground that it was number a discharge simplicitor but based on some discrepan cy in the declaration made by her before joining the serv ice.
The petitioner had deliberately withheld to mention the fact of being in the family way at the time of filling up the declaration form before medical examina tion for fitness.
Mohan for the Appellant.
She was put on probation for a period of 6 months.
If she had mentioned the companyrect date of her menstruation in her declaration her appointment would have been deferred as per rules.
She was appointed as Assistant in the Corpora tion.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It was asserted that the petitioner had deliberately given in her declaration to the Corporation wrong date of menstru ation as 29 April 1989 and she had given her companyrect date of LMP as 3 April 1989 to Dr. S.K. Gupta.
vi Are you pregnant number?
When we are moving forward to achieve the companystitutional guarantee of equal rights for women the life Insurance Corporation of India seems to be number moving beyond the status quo.
The following order of the Court was delivered JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. Leave granted.
She was successful in both the tests.
4488 of 1991.
She was asked to fill a decla ration form which she did and submitted to the Corporation on 25 May 1989.
The Doctor who examined the petitioner was in the approved panel of the Corporation.
S.Nanman, Kailash Vasudev, Ms. Alpana Kitpal and J.Paul for the Respondents.
The petitioner companycealed the fact of her being in the family way.
749 of 1990.
The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation of India the Corporation .
