IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 12 of 2002(S/B) Smt. Bimla Bhatt… …………… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ………. Respondents. Ms. Puja Banga, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K.Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral) On 12th February, 1993, petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Kathoor in Pauri Garhwal. In order to be so appointed, petitioner was required to have, in addition to other qualifications, BTC Training from a recognized Institution. Petitioner obtained such training from an Institution situated in Bihar. That was taken note of while the petitioner was appointed. Subsequently, it transpired that the institution, from where the petitioner obtained such training, is not a recognized Institution. Accordingly, by an order dated 6th March, 1993, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled. On 24th March, 1993,petitioner filed a writ petition and, on the said date, obtained an order staying the operation of the order dated 6th March, 1993, cancelling her appointment. The said writ petition was decided in favour of the petitioner on 23rd February, 1998, when the order dated 6th March, 1993, canceling her appointment, was quashed. The decision rendered on 23rd February,, 1998, on the said writ petition, was accepted as late as on 8th October, 2001, when the petitioner was asked to rejoin her duties petitioner did not serve, despite the interim order dated 24th March, 1993, the School in question since after 6th March, 1993. As it appears to be the contention of the petitioner, she joined the School, pursuant to the said letter dated 8th October, 2001, on 23rd October, 2001. Soon thereafter, by order dated 31st December, 2001, the services of the petitioner had been terminated. Hence, this writ petition. 2. A look at the latest order of termination of the services of the petitioner dated 31st December, 200 would make it amply clear that, thereby, the services of the petitioner were terminated during her probation period. The fact remains that after appointment, petitioner did not even complete the probation period. There is, therefore, hardly any scope of interference. However, it appears that when originally the present writ petition was filed, an order was passed staying the operation of the order dated 31st December, 2001 and, in terms thereof, petitioner continued to serve and continued to draw salaries. This order was vacated on 24the November,2009, when the writ petition was dismissed for default. Though the writ petition was subsequently restored, but the stay order, which was thus vacated, was not restored. This order was passed on 6th August, 2010. Despite that , petitioner is continuing to serve the School and is being paid salaries. 3. In the circumstances, taking into account the fact that the petitioner is a Post Graduate in Economics and has served the School since 23 rd October, 2001, we request the state Government to consider whether relaxation can be granted to the petitioner. Until such time it is considered by the state Government, let the petitioner work in the School in the manner she is working. 4. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 15.12.2010 15.12.2010 G