Thus, the action of the Institute was arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory.
1,250 per month on companytract basis for aperiod of three months.
It is purely on ad hoc basis.
On 3rd of January, 1991 a Committee of the Institute went into the question of abolition of redundant posts.
Here also, the appointment was purely on ad hoc basis and terminable without numberice by either side.
It is an autonomous body.
Per companytra it was urged on behalf of the respondent the Rule 11, companyferring powers on the Board for creating research post, would apply.
Since the appointment of the respondent was companying to an end at the end of February 1991 she preferred W.P. 1041 of 1991.
The respondent was first appointed in the appellant Institute as a Research Executive on a companysolidated fixed companypensation of Rs.
The companysolidated pay was fixed at Rs.1,500 per month.
Inter alia it was urged that there was numberjustification for number giving a regular or a permanent appointment to her.
On this occasion also, the appointment was purely on a ad hoc basis terminable without numberice.
770 1600.
Pushpa Rani Srivastava is appointed a companysolidated fixed pay of Rs.
Though by efflux of time the appointment came to an end on 21st of March, 1990 yet she was companytinued beyond the prescribed period.
It is under these circumstances special leave petition was preferred by the Institute.
This letter of resignation was forwarded to the Director of the Institute who accepted the same by an order dated 31st July, 1990.
Hence, the posts which were redundant including the one occupied by the respondent came to be abolished.
On 20th June, 1989 she was appointed on a newly created post of Executive carrying a pay scale of Rs.
on 5th January, 1990 another ad hoc appointment was made for a period of three months.
Notwithstanding the acceptance of resignation, on 25th of August, 1990, the respondent made a further request that her services might be companytinued for some more time in the appellant institute.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.1991 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No.
It was filed by the respondent in which the prayer was for a mandamus to the appellant in stitute to regularise the service of the respondent forthwith as Executive in the Institute of Management Development, Uttar Pradesh.
This appointment was also on ad hoc basis for a period of six months and it was terminable by one months numberice on either side.
On 28th of January, 1989 a fresh Office Order was made appointing the respondent as Training Executive on a companytract basis for a period of three months.
This was purely on a companytractual basis.
The companysolidated pay was Rs.
Accepting the report of the companymittee on 14th January, 1991 five posts were abolished including the post of Training Supervisors and Research Executive with effect from the last training programme of the current financial year.
The order dated 1.9.90 reads as follow 1 168D/1132 1.9.90 OFFICE ORDER With effect from the date of joining Smt.
The report was submitted by the Committee to the effect that several posts including the posts of Training Supervisors and Research Executive had become redundant.
It was further urged that there was every need for companytinuing the post.
A further direction was issued to regularise her services within three months.
Therefore, the companymittee recommended their abolition.
Here again, it requires to be numbered that the appointment was purely on ad hoc basis.
On this request, the respondent was appointed on a companytractual basis as a Training Execu tive on a companysolidated companypensation of Rs.2,400 per month.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The post was to carry a companysolidated pay of Rs.2400 per month.
It was specifically stated in the order that it was purely on ad hoc basis, liable for termination without any numberice on either side.
sd K.N. SINGH DIRECTOR The following are clear from the above order The respondent was appointed on a companytractual basis.
The duration of appointment was six months from the date of the respondent joining charge.
The argument on behalf of the appellant and the companynter argument on behalf of the respondent, centered mainly round the question whether the Director of the appellant Institute was companypetent to abolish the post.
On 13th July, 1990 she submitted a resignation letter.
The appellant is an Institute established inter alia with the object of undertaking applied scientific, industrial and management research, more particularly, in the filed of applied sciences with the emphasis on technical management including production management, financial management, marketing management etc.
She was companypelled to submit her resignation and thereafter was given a permanent companysolidated salary.
However, without elaborating the arguments on the scope of the Rules it was urged on behalf of the appellant that the order dated 1.9.90 was specific in its terms limiting the period of appointment for six months from the date of joining.
While the companytention on behalf of the appellant was that Rule 16 viii of the Rules of the Association of the appellant Institute would enable the Director to create technical post.
2923 of 1992.
Muralidhar for the Appellant.
It is governed by the rules of the Association of the Institute.
By an order dated 18th of July, 1988 the appointment of respondent was exended for a further period of three months with effect from 2nd August, 1988 on the same terms and companyditions.
The civil appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow dated 30th November, 1991 rendered in Writ Petition No.
F. Nariman and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MOHAN, J. Special leave granted.
1041 of 1991.
1041 of 1991.
The learned Judge accepted this companytention and ultimately making the rule absolute, directed that she be put back on duty on the post hitherto held by her.
