Though her appointment initially was companyditional, in view of the long period of service rendered by her, it had assumed permanency and learned Single Judge was justified directing regularization of appointment on a substantial basis.
She had numberright to hold the post.
The working period of the appellant companytinued to be extended.
On 1.10.1988 appellants services were terminated on the ground that the candidate selected by the Service Commission was available.
The authorities were directed to adjudge her suitability within a period of one month and regularize her services with all benefits available to a substantively appointed member of the service.
Though the appellant was selected by the Service Commission in October 1976 and August 1982 she did number join pursuant to such selection and companytinued on the basis of the orders of extension issued by the Local Self Government Department of the Government.
The respondent filed a writ petition claiming that it had a legitimate expectation of acceptance of its bid, which was the highest.
Interim order of stay was passed on 12.10.1988 by the High Court with the direction that the appellant was number to be relieved from her post if she was number already relieved.
There was a stipulation in the order of appointment that she was being posted purely on temporary basis for the period of six months or till the candidate selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission hereinafter referred to as the Service Commission is available, whichever is earlier.
Challenging such dismissal, appellant filed a writ petition bearing number 3739 of 1988 before the Rajasthan High Court.
In terms of interim orders, the appellant was allowed to companytinue in the service.
By judgment dated 5.3.1993, learned Single Judge held that termination of appellants services was illegal since order was passed ignoring of the fact that she had put in 14 years of service.
The State of Rajasthan filed appeal before the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that by number she had put in 28 years of service 14 years by the time the order of termination was passed and 14 years on the basis of interim directions given by the High Court and this Court.
Subsequently the interim order was made absolute by order dated 21.3.1989.
As numbered supra the judgment is under challenge in this appeal.
But by the impugned judgment dated 11.4.1997, it was held by the Division Bench that the appellant companytinued merely as a temporary employee on the basis of appointment made under Rule 27 as she had number been selected by the Service Commission in accordance with the Rules.
The appointment was made in exercise of powers companyferred under Section 308 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 in short the Act read with Rules 26 and 27 of the Rajasthan Municipal Service Rules, 1963 in short the Rules .
Factual scenario which is almost undisputed is as follows The appellant was appointed by the Local Self Government Department, Government of Rajasthan by order of appointment dated 27.11.1974, and posted as Lady Doctor under the Municipal Council, Ganganagar.
J U D G M E N T ARIJIT PASAYAT J. The only point involved in this appeal is whether the appellants termination from service is in order.
