AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rekha Sharma, J.—The Petitioners were appointed as Pharmacists by Respondent No. 2 vide identical appointment letters dated July 14, 2008. A sample copy of the appointment letter has been placed on the record as Annexure "A". On February 28, 2011 the Petitioners along with 18 others were given one month''s notice and thereby they were informed that their services will be terminated w.e.f. March 31, 2011. It is this letter of February 28, 2011 which the Petitioners have assailed before me.
It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that inspite of the fact that there are vacancies of Pharmacists, Respondent No. 2 without any cogent reason has done away with the services of the Petitioners.
On the other hand, it is submitted by learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 who is present on advance service that no vacancies of Pharmacists are available and in any case, in terms of the appointment letters of the Petitioners, they have no right to the posts. Reference in this regard has been made to Clauses-1 & 9 of the appointment letters. The said clauses read as under:
x x x x x
The appointment is purely contractual & for a period of Eleven months initially. The tenure of the assignment may be extended further after 11 months subject to satisfactory performance of the duties & conduct during the period but the integrated District Health Society, New Delhi District is not obliged in any way to regularize your appointment against the post and may be terminated even when regular post is vacant.
x x x x x
The Society reserves the right to terminate the contract to the post without assigning any reason after giving a month''s advance notice. Similarly, you shall have to give a Notice of one month before you may decide to resign from the post or deposit a month''s salary in lieu of the same.
It is apparent from the aforementioned clauses of the appointment letter that the appointments of the Petitioners were purely contractual and their services could be terminated even if a regular post was vacant. As per Clause-9, Respondent No. 2 was not obliged to give any reason to the Petitioners before terminating their services. It was only required to give one month''s advance notice which, as noticed above, it did give.
For what has been noticed above, I find no merit in the writ-petition. The same is dismissed.