SBC Writ Petition No.4593/09 Tara Panwar v. State of Raj. &ors. SBC Writ Petition No.4593/09 Tara Panwar v. State of Raj. &ors. Date of order: 8.5.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Kaluram Bhati for the petitioner. ... Heard learned counsel for the petitioenr. The petitioner was originally given appointment on contract basis in Lok Jumbish Project upto 30.6.2008 vide order Annex.1. By order dated 27.12.2002, the petitioner was given appointment for one year as trainer. Then according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, she was absorbed in Sarva Shikhsha Abhiyan Project in the year 2004. However, said order has not been placed on record. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, she worked in the said project upto 31.3.2007 and thereafter, she submitted letter of resignation and the charge was taken from her on 10.4.2007 in pursuance of the order passed by the competent authority. The petitioner's request for accepting her resignation was forwarded by the District Education Officer vide Annex.5. However, in the year 2008, specifically on 6.5.2008, the petitioner submitted that she could not join the duties because she was sick and her father-in-law also met with accident. Then again the petitioner submitted representation for giving her appointment. Then the petitioner could get the order from the District Education Officer(Training) on 2.3.2009 (Annex.12) for her SBC Writ Petition No.4593/09 Tara Panwar v. State of Raj. &ors. appointment, however, that appointment continued till 28.4.2009, as by communication dated 28.4.2009, she was informed that since financial sanction has not been given by the Government, therefore, her services is terminated forthwith. The petitioner being aggrieved against the order dated 28.4.2009 (Annex.14), has preferred this writ petition. The facts referred above clearly speak loud and as per the petitioner herself she was absorbed in another service on contract basis in another project in the year 2004 and as per the petitioner herself, she worked upto 31.3.2007 and submitted her resignation letter and did not work for two years. The respondents, yet appointed the petitioner vide order dated 2.3.2009. In a case where large number of aspirants are waiting for the government appointments and other appointments even on ad hoc basis, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order dated 28.4.2009 because of the fact that the petitioner's service was on contract basis. She was given appointment on 2.3.2009 obviously without there being any financial sanction. The petitioner herself did not work for long period. The writ is not available to such type of the petitioner. The writ petition of the petitioner is, therefore, dismissed. ( PRAKASH TATIA),J. mlt.