Rajasree Raghu vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

V.M. Sahai, J.—We have heard learned Counsel Mr. Anil N. Mehta for the Petitioner, Mr. B.N. Doctor for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3, and Mr. Hriday C. Buch for Respondent No. 2.

The Petitioner was appointed by the Respondents on ad hoc basis on 21.9.1988 for a period of five months. She worked on ad hoc basis. Her services were terminated by order dated 26.12.1988. Thereafter, the Petitioner was continued by the Respondents on per page typing rate basis and ultimately, she was disengaged with effect from 11.9.1991. The Petitioner preferred Original Application No. 326 of 1991 with M.A. No. 352 of 1991 which was decided on 30.11.1999. The claim of the Petitioner was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, on the ground that the Petitioner herself has admitted that she has worked on ad hoc basis only for a period of five months from October 1988 and thereafter, she has been working on per page typing rate basis, therefore, no right accrued to the Petitioner to claim appointment with the Respondents.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that the Petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis and the Respondents have appointed one Km. Mainak Pasawala on ad-hoc basis, who was junior to the Petitioner. It is true that one ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee as laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court. But,in the instant case, the Petitioner continued as ad hoc employee only for a period of five months and thereafter, she worked on per page typing rate basis, therefore, she could not claim that the appointment of Km. Mainak Pasawala could not be made by the Respondents.

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition nor any illegality in the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. This petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.