CW 4366/95 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.4366/1995 Smt. Shahina Jahid Versus Raj. Co-operative Dairy Fed. Ltd & Ors Date of Order ::: 03/11/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Pankaj Sharma, for petitioner Mr.VL Mathur, for respondents-Dairy Federation Petitioner joined service on contract basis in a project initially for two years on the the post of Assistant Manager; however, lateron, fixed in regular pay scale and because of project having come to an end on 31/03/95, her services were terminated/ dispensed with vide order dt.80/09/95 (Ex.4) – validity whereof has been assailed herein. Initially petitioner was appointed as Assistant Manager (Mahila) under Rajasthan Women Dairy Project on a monthly consolidated sum of Rs.3,000/- vide order dt.17/02/92 (Ann.1) for a period of one year and Cl.(ii) of the terms & conditions of contract, postulates that this appointment is for two years or till expiry of the project, whichever is earlier, purely on adhoc basis. However, vide order dt. 30/09/94 (Ann.5) she was fixed in the regular pay scale of Rs.2200-4000/- w.e.f. 18/06/93 on the same terms & conditions CW 4366/95 //2// of contract and while holding post in regular pay scale, her services were terminated by giving one month's advance notice vide order dt.08/09/95 (Ann.13) on the premise that the project has come to an end on 31/03/95. Counsel for petitioner submits that the project in which petitioner was appointed is still operating and other similarly situated persons having been appointed alongwith her in the project on the post of Mahila Anudeshak (Female Instructor) were allowed to continue. Counsel further submits that her appointment was co-terminus with the project and if the project is still operative, dispensing with her service in such circumstances cannot be said to be justified and action of respondents is violative of Art. 14 & 16 of the Constitution. In the reply filed by respondents, it has been specifically averred that the project in which the petitioner was appointed has come to an end on 31/03/95 and her appointment was co-terminus with the completion of project and once the project, has come to end on 31/03/95, her services have been terminated as per terms & conditions of contract, which cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Art.14 & 16 of CW 4366/95 //3// the Constitution of India. Petitioner has placed certain documents alongwith rejoinder that too also disclose that services of petitioner were terminated as per term & conditions of contract; and schedule appended thereto discloses that female instructor working in district Zila Milk Dairy but no inference can be drawn that they were appointed in the same project in which petitioner was appointed. Even additional affidavit filed by petitioner nowhere discloses about the fact that the project in which she was appointed, was operating while her services were dispensed with or till the period matter has been taken up for hearing. While petitioner was initially appointed on contract basis and her services were regulated as per terms & conditions of the agreement executed between the parties to the contract and Cl.(ii)whereof relevant for the purpose reads ad infra: “(ii) That this appointment will be a contract appointment for a period of two years or till the expiry of the project period whichever is earlier on purely on adhoc basis. On expiry of the tenure of contract, you will have CW 4366/95 //4// no claim over RCDF/Union in lieu of the services rendered by you.” Cl.(ii)(supra) clearly postulates that appointment was initially for a period of two years or till expiry of project, whichever is earlier. Petitioner's appointment after expiry of period of two years certainly remained co- terminus with the project and this fact has come on record duly averred in the reply and so also depicts from the order impugned, itself that the project has come to an end on 31/03/95 and on the said premise her services were terminated. As regards submission made by Counsel for the petitioner that the project is still operating and other similarly situated employees like Mahila Anudeshak are continuing in service, there is no material on record, from which this Court could infer that other two Mahila Anudeshak were also appointed in the same project alongwith petitioner and no material has come on record by which it can be inferred that the project in which she was appointed was operating on the date of passing of the order impugned or it is still operating. In the opinion of this Court, her services being co-terminus with the project which has come to an end on 31/03/95, the CW 4366/95 //5// respondent has not committed any error or violated any provisions of law while terminating her services. Consequently, writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.5/ 4366CW95Nov4-DsContr.doc