It is also alleged that the appellants work was always found to be satisfactory, and certificates to this effect were given by the Chief Medical Officer, Bulandshahar which were marked as Annexure 4 to the writ petition filed in the High Court.
The writ petitioner respondent in the present appeal has alleged that she is entitled to the benefit of the said decision, although she had number filed any individual writ petition.
The appellant was appointed from 1.8.1987 to 31.7.1988, then from 3.8.1988 to 2.8.1989, then from 4.8.1989 to 3.8.1990 and from 7.8.1990 for a period one year.
It is alleged in her writ petition that to avoid the claim of regular service of the writ petitioner the State Government acted against the spirit of law laid down by this Court in Rattanlal and others vs. State of Haryana and others AIR 1987 SC 478 and in Rabinarayan Mohapatra vs. State of Orissa and others AIR 1991 SC 1286 and other decisions given from time to time by this Court, declaring illegal the policy of making ad hoc appointment having time bound period and thereafter terminating the services of the appointee and after a short interval giving re appointment.
Similarly, Dr. Lilawati Tripathi was also regularized in service.
She made several representations to the government authorities but to numberavail.
It is alleged that Anshkalik doctors filed a writ petition being Civil Writ Petition No.
1213 of 1999 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
4886 of 1990 before the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench which was allowed on 11.2.1992 and the said judgment became final.
6528 of 1992.
4886 of 1990 on 11.2.1992.
The respondent herein did number work after 16.4.1991 in the State service as her services came to an end on that date.
4886 of 1990, but the same was dismissed on 19.2.1996.
It is alleged that the State government arbitrarily terminated the service of the respondent on 16.4.1991.
25503 of 1995 was filed before this Court against the Allahabad High Court judgment and order dated 11.2.1991 passed in writ petition No.
It is alleged that others similarly situated have been regularized e.g. Dr. Sudha Trivedi in pursuance of the order dated 21.3.1996 in writ petition No.
The High Court held that there was violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and that the claim of the writ petitioner s for regularization shall be companysidered within six months from the date of production of companyy of the said judgment before the respondent the State Government .
A companynter affidavit was filed before the High Court in which it was stated that the respondent herein had been appointed as a temporary employee from time to time, and the last appointment was given on 7.8.1990 for one year.
Hence, it is alleged that the writ petitioner respondent herein has been discriminated against.
She was number in service w.e.f 16.4.1991.
It is also alleged that after the dismissal of the said SLP the writ petitioner s should have been regularized in service, but that was number done.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
She alleged in her writ petition filed in the High Court that she had all the requisite qualifications to be appointed as Medical Officer in the U.P. State Services.
It is alleged that others similarly situated were also given artificial breaks in service.
The respondent has a degree of B.A.M.S. Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery .
Hence, this appeal.
She was appointed vide order dated 1.8.1997 under the Anshkalik temporary Scheme of the State Government and was posted at a Government Female Hospital in Bulandshahar district.
Markandey Katju, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.7.2003 in CMWP No.
It was alleged that artificial break of service was given by the State Government which is against the spirit of the aforesaid decisions of this Court.
Relying on its earlier decision the High Court allowed the impugned writ petition No.
