S.C. Agrawal, J.
2. The appellant was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on ad hoc basis, in the office of Respondent 1, on 25.3.1992. By order dated 27.5.1992 the services of the appellant were regularised. Thereafter an order was passed on 26/27.8.1992 whereby the services of the appellant were terminated. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana but the same was dismissed by the High Court by order dated 23.7.1993. From the written statement which was filed on behalf of Respondent 1 in the High Court, it appears that the only reason which weighed with Respondent 1 to terminate the services of the appellant was that the order dated 27.5.1992 for regularisation was passed illegally by the then Chairman or Respondent 1 and that the said order was vitiated by mala fides and favouritism and that there was no post on which the appellant could be regularised.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. A counsel-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of Respondent 1 which has been taken on record.
4. If it was found that order for regularisation of the appellant was not validily passed, she could be relegated to the position of ad hoc employee which she was holding prior to such regularisation and that could not be a ground for terminating the services of the appellant. That seems to have been done in respect of 6 other employees whose services are also said to have been wrongly regularised. Those employees have continued as ad hoc employees after the order of regularisation was revoked. We do not find any reason why the appellant should be treated differently.
5. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The termination of the services of the appellant under order dated 26/27.8.1992 is set aside and the said order would only operate as effecting revocation of the order dated 27.5.1992 for regularisation of the appellant and as a consequence the appellant would be relegated to the position of an ad hoc employee which she was having on the date of passing of the order of regularisation. As to whether the services of the appellant as an ad hoc employee should be terminated will have to be considered by Respondent 1 along with other ad hoc employees. The appellant will, however, not be entitled to any back wages. No order as to costs.