CWP No. 15130 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 15130 of 1991 Date of Decision: 4.4.2011 *** Ms. Navjot Kaur .. Petitioner Vs. B.B.K. DAV College for Women, Amritsar & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.P. Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate for the respondents. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner has impugned order dated 23.3.1991 (Annexure P-3) by dint of which she had been relieved of her duties. It is the case of the petitioner that she joined the respondent No.1-College as a part-time Lecturer in August, 1989 and worked as such upto March 1990. Thereafter, pursuant to an advertisement dated 23.7.1990 for filling up the posts of Lecturer in Punjabi which were likely to become permanent in UGC Grade, she applied for the said post and also appeared in the interview. Consequently, she was selected and reported for the duty on 20.8.1990 with respondent No.1. But on 23.3.1991 when she applied for maternity leave, she was relieved of her duties, without following the due procedure. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis and her tenure was for specific period i.e. upto the dispersal of classes, which had to take place on 31.3.1991. However, on her request, she was relived of her duties on 23.3.1991. It is the stand of the respondents that the petitioner was never appointed against the posts of Punjabi Lecturer which were likely to become CWP No. 15130 of 1991 2 permanent in UGC Grade vide advertisement Annexure P-2 rather two other candidates namely Dr. Rupinder Pal and Mrs. Jagjit Kaur were selected. Hence, no right accrued in favour of the petitioner and she was rightly relieved of her service. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper book carefully. The initial appointment of the petitioner as a Punjabi Lecturer on temporary basis on 31.7.1989 upto dispersal of classes is not in dispute. Vide advertisement dated 23.7.1990 two set of posts were proposed to fill up. Under category (a) full time lecturer in cosmetology, business, management and part time lecturers/ assistant lecturer in Sanskrit, History, Economics, Punjabi, dress designing, home science and maths were to be filled up and for that the date of interview was 30.7.1990 at the premises of respondent No.1 at Amritsar. Under category (b) three posts of Lecturers full time in Punjabi were to be filled up and the said posts were likely to become permanent in UGC Grade and interview was to be held at DAV College Managing Committee, New Delhi Office. The petitioner has pleaded that she was appointed against the posts falling under category (b) and joined respondent No.1-College on 20.8.1990 and hence the action if dispensing her service, without following the due procedure of law, is illegal. However, a perusal of Annexure R-2 i.e. the proceedings of the meeting of the Selection Committee held from 3.8.1990 to 7.8.1990 at New Delhi reveals that the petitioner was never selected for the posts falling under category (b), rather her selection was made pursuant to the meeting of the Adhoc Selection Committee held on 30.7.1990 for the post of Lecturer in Punjabi, as per Annexure R-3. Consequently, she was issued appointment letter Annexure R-3/A, which speaks of the fact that her appointment was purely on temporary basis till dispersal of classes w.e.f. 20.8.1990. One of the conditions was that during the temporary employment her services may be terminated by one month's notice on either side or on payment of salary in lieu of notice period. The said letter carries the endorsement of the petitioner regarding acceptance of the terms and conditions laid down in the appointment letter. Therefore, it is clear that her appointment was on temporary basis and for specific period. The benefit of the provisions of Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service of Employees) Act, 1974 CWP No. 15130 of 1991 3 cannot be extended to the petitioner because she was a temporary employee and as per Section 6 the provisions of Sections 3,4 and 5 relating to dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, are not applicable to the employees appointed for a temporary period. Thus, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that she had been relieved by respondent No.1 against the provisions of law. She was appointed for a specific period on temporary basis and hence rightly relieved of her duties. There is no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 04, 2011 Jiten