JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner having qualified as M.Sc. in Home Science (Extension), on the recommendations of the College Selection Committee, was appointed as Lady Extension Worker for a period of six months at the fixed emoluments of Rs. 700/- per month vide order dated 21.8.1985 (Annexure 1). She continued on the job and vide order dated 16/17.1.1987 she was given the pay scale of Rs. 740-1420 plus usual allowances and on revision of the pay scales under the Revised Pay Scales Rules, 1987 was allowed to draw initial pay in the revised scale of Rs. 1400-2875 vide order dated 23.4.1987. On 13.12.1988 vide Annexure-2 the Vice-Chancellor was pleased to appoint her on the post of Programme Officer in Improved Chulla, College of Technology and Agricultural Engineering, Udaipur in pay scale of Rs. 1720-3350 on ad hoc basis for a period up to 31.3.1989 or till a regularly selected candidate joins whichever was earlier. But later on consequent upon the downgrading of the post of Programme Officer to that of Lady Extension Worker she was again appointed on her original post of Lady Extension Worker at Improved Chulla at CTAD, Udaipur with effect from 1.4.1989 on usual terms and conditions of her appointment. It is stated that because of the reason that she had fallen sick, she applied for 7 days' medical leave with effect from 16.3.1989 which had to be extended on account of illness and other circumstances, Vide Annexure-4 dated 19/22.4.1989 she was advised to file the medical certificate from the competent Medical Officer. She was again informed vide letter dated 5.5.1989 to submit the medical certificate as well as fitness certificate and in case of failure on her part to comply with the order she would be treated on leave without pay. She continued sending the leave applications and medical certificates and ultimately on 11.7.1989 vide Annexure-10 she had submitted that medical certificate for the period from 16.3.1989 to 7.5.1989 with the further request that she is still not well and she has been advised treatment and, therefore, she be allowed the salary. She continued sending the leave applications and medical certificates and ultimately on 11.7.1989 vide Annexure-10 she had submitted that medical certificate for the period from 16.3.1989 to 7.5.1989 with the further request that she is still not well and she has been advised treatment and, therefore, she be allowed the salary. Ultimately, it was on 1.1.1990 that she reported for duty after availing extraordinary leave from 16.3.1989 to 30.12.1989 but in the meantime her services had been terminated vide order dated 20/23.12.1989 of which fact, she was informed vide letter Annexure-12 dated 16/17.1.1990 by the Dean wherein the Dean had mentioned that her services stand already terminated from December, 1989. The letter of termination passed by the Vice-Chancellor and communicated by the Registrar is also attached to the writ petition as Annexure-13 which is a simple letter of termination. Being aggrieved of the order of termination she made a representation dated 7.7.1990 (Annexure-15) mentioning therein that she had applied for medical/maternity leave from 16.3.1989 to 30.12.1989 for which she had been submitting leave applications and medical certificates to the Dean and that in January, 1990 her father-in- law had a severe heart attack and, therefore, she could not be present in the office. She had also requested for the refund of the medical bills. 2. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is, that the impugned order Annexure-13 is penal in character and has been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and also without holding any enquiry. It is further submitted that even if she be deemed to be absent, her leave has been granted from time to time when she was asked to submit her medical certificates and, therefore, the action of the respondents is unwarranted and unjustified. A prayer has been made to quash the order Annexure-13 dated 20/23.12.1989 by declaring it to be illegal. A prayer has also been made that when she was on medical leave even for the period after 1.1.1990 she is entitled to salary with interest. 3. The case was admitted in the month of December, 1990 but no return has been filed by the respondents. However, the respondents (sic) it was thought appropriate by the Court to look into the defence of the respondents from the file itself. 4. 3. The case was admitted in the month of December, 1990 but no return has been filed by the respondents. However, the respondents (sic) it was thought appropriate by the Court to look into the defence of the respondents from the file itself. 4. After going through the office file, the facts as stated are confirmed in regard to the appointments and submission and applying of the medical leave and the medical certificates submitted from time to time. The petitioner was not allowed to join her duty on 4.1.1990 because of the reason that the termination of the services of the petitioner had already been put into force. A case has been made out during the course of the arguments that the services of the petitioner, as a matter of fact, had been terminated because of the reason that the post itself was abolished. 5. After going through the record it is found that while dealing with her leave application a note was appended on 7.10.1989 by the department as under:- ''Her services may be terminated giving one month notice salary and compensation as per rules, as at present no post of Lady Extension Worker is vacant on which she was appointed after selection. For orders pl.'' To the abovesaid note the Registrar put a query as to since when she was without a job and how did it come about. The Registrar thereafter made the following note : ''Discussed with Prof. A.N. Mathur. The post Lady Ext. Worker stands abolished. Hence action as per Dean's request may be taken by terminating her services.'' This note has been sent to the Vice-Chancellor who approved the same. 6. Letter No. CATE/Estt-89/3004-5, dated 23.9.1989 is also found on the record wherein a reference has been made to the sanction No. 408/4/89-16, dated 4.9.1989 regarding NPIC for 1989-90, wherein it has been mentioned that one post in the cadre of Senior Analyst/Programme Officer has been deleted by the Government in spite of best efforts to continue the number of posts sanctioned during 1988-89. It has been mentioned in the letter that the petitioner being the junior-most, her services may be terminated. It is further mentioned that the post on which the petitioner was working earlier was withdrawn during the last year itself and, therefore, she does not hold any post in the Scheme/College. It has been mentioned in the letter that the petitioner being the junior-most, her services may be terminated. It is further mentioned that the post on which the petitioner was working earlier was withdrawn during the last year itself and, therefore, she does not hold any post in the Scheme/College. Copy of the letter is placed on the record as Annexure C-1. The other office note from the record dated 9.11.1990 which is marked as Annexure-C-2 by me shows that the University had proposed to continue the post held by the petitioner but the Department of Non- Conventional Energy Source (DNES) of its own discontinued the post for the reasons known to them. The office note dated 9.11.1990 is reproduced as under:-''No. CTAE/REC/90/2551 Date 9.11.90. OFFICE NOTE Regarding Mrs. Alka Kothari.Mrs. Alka Kothari was working on the post of Programme Officer up to the end of the project period i.e. 30th March, 1989.The Department of Non-Conventional Energy Sources (DNES), New Delhi, was submitted a project proposal by Dean CTAE to continue the Programme Officer post, on which Mrs. Kothari was working. The DNES at their own discontinued the post and also the post on which Mrs. Kothari was duly appointed (Lady Extension Worker) for the reason known to them.(A.N. Mathur) Principal Scientific Officer.'' 7. Along with this office note a statement of the posts is attached showing the posts being occupied by the officers at that time i.e. Demonstrator Mech. Engg. or Drawing Instructor, Workshop Supervisor, 2 posts of Lab. Asstt. and 5th post of Lady Extension Officer being held by the petitioner. A note has been given to the effect of termination of the petitioner's services vide order dated 23.12.1989 with immediate effect due to withdrawal of the post of Lady Extn. Worker by the Government of India. The statement showing the number of the posts and the abovesaid note thereon is marked as Annexure C.3 as placed on the record. 8. From the pleadings and the record, it is clear that even though initially there was some correspondence between the petitioner and the department in regard to the submission of medical certificates etc. The statement showing the number of the posts and the abovesaid note thereon is marked as Annexure C.3 as placed on the record. 8. From the pleadings and the record, it is clear that even though initially there was some correspondence between the petitioner and the department in regard to the submission of medical certificates etc. when the petitioner was on leave but the reason which has come out from the office record for terminating the services of the petitioner, as brought out is that the Government of India did not extend the continuation of this post and, therefore, the services of the petitioner were terminated from the date of passing the order Annexure 13. The post itself has been abolished for the Scheme where the petitioner was working, the Government had thought it fit not to continue this post, no fault can be found with such an action of the Government. The only relief the petitioner could be granted in the present writ petition is that the petitioners shall be paid the salary of the leave period if the leave is due to her or any notice period for terminating the services, if under the rules or any instructions or letter of appointment any notice is required to be given, till the date of termination of the services. If any arrears of salary become due up to 23.12.1989, that shall be calculated by the respondents and paid to the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner is not entitled to any leave salary on account of any lawful reason, in that situation, the petitioner would be informed of such decision which shall be a speaking order. 9. However, it is made clear that if any post of Lady Extension Worker or Programme Officer which post the petitioner was holding had ever been created or is created in future after the date of termination, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move this Court for appropriate relief by filing a writ petition to this effect and claiming her right on the post so created or to be created. In case the post is created in future, the petitioner shall have a prior right of consideration against that post. 10. In case the post is created in future, the petitioner shall have a prior right of consideration against that post. 10. For the reasons mentioned above and with the abovesaid directions, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******