Neetu Bhati @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming undermentioned reliefs:

 “It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed:-

(A) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, respondent may kindly be directed to allow the Petitioner to join the services on the post of Audiologist

Cum Speech Therapist in pursuance of order dated 03.07.2017

(Annex-5) with all consequential benefits.

(B) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the last date of joining i.e. 18.07.2017 as mentioned in order dated 03.07.2017 may kindly be extended

qua the petitioner.

(C) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, any order denying joining or rejecting appointment order dated 03.07.2017 may kindly be quashed and

set aside.

(D)Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case

may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(E) Writ petition filed by the Petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.â€​

For claiming aforementioned reliefs, in the writ petition, it is inter-alia averred by the petitioner that pursuant to advertisement issued by respondent-

department on 28th of January 2016 (Annex.1) under National Health Mission for employing certain paramedical and technical staff on contract basis,

she applied for the post of Audiologist cum Speech Therapist.  Initially, 7 posts were shown in the advertisement for contractual appointment

against the said post.  It appears that considering the requirement of 12 incumbents, respondents provided contractual appointment to 12 persons

on the post of Audiologist cum Speech Therapist by order dated 5th of June 2017 (Annex.3). Although the said information was not available to the

petitioner but somehow or other she came to know when some other incumbent Lala Ram obtained requisite information under Right to Information

Act.  Be that as it may, after 12 incumbents were appointed on contractual basis, probably 3 incumbents did not join and therefore respondent

passed order dated 3rd of July 2017 (Annex.5) whereby petitioner was also offered appointment on contractual basis. Grievance of the petitioner is

that she was never communicated order Annex.5 and therefore pursuant to the same she could not join her duties. Subsequently, petitioner became

pregnant and delivered a baby on 9th of March 2018 after cesarean operation.  After operation, she remained under treatment for almost two

months and thereafter when she came to know about Annex.5, she submitted a representation (Annex.6) before competent authority to provide her

employment on contractual basis. However, according to the petitioner, no need is paid to her representation.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the materials available on record including the advertisement (Annex.1).

At the outset, it may be observed that the advertisement (Annex.1) was issued for providing contractual employment and admittedly her name did not

find mention in the initial order Annex.3.   It was only due to the contingency of non-joining by 3 incumbents that she was offered employment

on contractual basis vide Annex.5.  True it is that as per assertion of the petitioner she was not communicated said order but then the terms of

employment clearly indicate that it was initially for three months and the maximum period was upto the end of financial year, i.e., 31st of March. Â

The requisite recital, in vernacular, contained in order Annex.5 reads as under:

“mDr lafonk dkfeZdksa dks izFker% rhu ekg ds fy;s ¼izkscs’ku vof/k½ fy;k tkosxk A rhu ekg iâ€pkr lafonk dkfeZd dh lsokvksa ds

ewY;kadu ds vk/kkj ij mudh lsok vof/k dks Hkkjr ljdkj ls izkIr vuqefr vuqlkj izFker% lEcfU/kr foŸkh; o’kZ es 31 ekpZ ¼foŸkh; o’kZ

vof/k½ rd ds fy;s cAs the financial year has already come to an end, no indulgence can now be granted to the petitioner.  It is also noteworthy that the petitioner has

filed the present petition after a lapse of one year from date of the issuance of order Annex.5 and considering the nature of employment, which was

contractual, the directions craved for in the petition cannot be issued by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction.

Resultantly, petition fails and the same is hereby rejected summarily.