Thereafter, another order was passed on 4.6.1983 again appointing her as ad hoc Probation Officer but as stated earlier, since her leave was duly sanctioned on 14.2.1983 and thereafter regularised by the order of 1.11.1989, it will have to be presumed that she had companytinued in service as ad hoc Probation Officer from her initial appointment, i.e., on 2.6.1980.
On 15th February, 1983, she proceeded on maternity leave which was duly sanctioned on 14th February, 1983 by the District Magistrate who is the Controlling Officer under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
29.2.1984 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.
Applications were invited for the posts of Probation Officers ad hoc, on 11.4.1980 from departmental female candidates possessing requisite qualifications.
This is particularly so because she was allowed to resume service as Probation Officer on her return from leave on 16.6.1983 and subsequently by an order of 1.11.1989, the Additional Director also duly sanctioned the salary for the entire period of her leave from 15.2.1983 to 15.6.1983.
It appears that, in between, the Government had passed an order on 26.2.1983 appointing the respondent as ad hoc Probation Officer although she was on leave.
the sanction of leave on 14.2.1983 and its regularisation by the order of 1.11.1989, have treated the respondent as being in companytinuous service as ad hoc Probation Officer w.e.f.
She was in service on 22.3.1984 and on that day, she had companypleted more than three years service in the post held by her.
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 admitted facts in the present case are that on 26.10.1973 the respondent was appointed as Deputy Superintendent, Government Approved School number known as Juvenile Home.
The respondent applied for one of the posts, and pursuant to her selection, was appointed as Probation Officer with effect from 2.6.1980.
On 4.5.1984, therefore, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court.
She did number, of companyrse, join the service pursuant to this order.
The attempt of the State Government to revert her by the order of 27.3.1984 w.e.f.
She resumed her duty on 16.6.1983 on the same post.
Subsequently, by an order of 27.3.1984, the respondent was reverted retrospectively, w.e.f.
However, by the impugned order, the petitioner is directed to companysider the respondent for regularisation under the Rules.
Hence she is entitled to the benefit of the Rules.
2.6.1980.
an earlier date, viz.,
