IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 854 of 1999 MISS BABITA AGARWAL V/S RAJ.AGRI UNI.BIKANER Mr.Jagdish VYAS, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, for the respondent Date of Order : 1.4.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI SANGEET LODHA,J. ORDER ----- This appeal has been filed by the appellant seeking to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3.5.1999, dismissing the writ petition. The necessary facts are, that the petitioner filed the writ petition alleging inter alia, that she was appointed on temporary basis for a period of three months on contractual basis, at a monthly salary of Rs.2,000/- w.e.f. 1.6.1997. Then, vide order dated 26.10.1997, she was re- appointed for a further period of three months on the same terms. It is alleged that vide letter dated 22.10.1997, the Head of Department recommended for regularisation of her services, as there was a vacancy of the said post in the Department, but the Authority did not agree, and her services stood terminated on expiry of the term of contract. On these facts, the writ petition was filed, praying for direction to regularise her services on the post of Computer Operator, after quashing her oral termination. This writ petition was filed on 23.4.1999. The respondents contested the writ petition, by taking the plea inter-alia, that she was never appointed on the post of Computer Operator on regular basis. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order, dismissed the writ petition, in limine, inter-alia relying upon few judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of Haryana vs. Surinder Kumar, (1997) 3 SCC 633, State of Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh, (1996)11 SCC 77, Himachal Pradesh Housing Board vs. Om Pal & others, JT 1996(10) SC 719 and Ram Chander & others vs. Additional District Magistrate and others, (1998) 1 SCC 183 etc. In this appeal, reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents, alleging inter-alia, that the University is having about 15 posts of Computer Operator, which have been advertised by the respondent University, in pursuance of the advertisement applications were received, the University has also advertised the post of Data Entry Operator, as well as the Computer Programmer, for which advertisement was issued on 7.4.98, and in response thereto, the petitioner herself applied for the post of Data Entry Operator. Thus, the petitioner's case for regularisation was contested on the ground of suppression of material facts, as well as on merits. It was also 2 contended that her initial appointment was not in accordance with the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and therefore, no interference can be made in her favour, so as to violate the above two articles. In our view, having gone through the impugned judgment and the reply, the legal position is now settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others vs. Uma Devi & others, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1, wherein, it has clearly been held that, if a person has not been appointed through a regular process of selection, such person cannot claim regularisation, simply because, he had worked for certain period of time. In view of the above, agreeing with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge, and in addition, relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case, we find no force in the appeal. The same is therefore, dismissed. ( SANGEET LODHA ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /aditya /\ 3