Dr Sadhana Godika vs Managing Committee And Ors on 4 May, 2016
Nor was her appointment by the Selection Committee from amongst the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange. The need of being put through an interview by a Selection Committee applied with equal force as mandated under Rule 26(2) of the Rules of 1993, both to applicants who applied in response to an open advertisement and for those whose names are forwarded by the employment exchange on requisition made. Aside of the aforesaid, it is well settled that the mere nomenclature in a letter of appointment is not conclusive and for considering the nature of the appointment, the method adopted for appointment of the person concerned is to be considered. This has been categorically enunciated in the case of Inderjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [RLW 2009 (2) Raj. 1848] where it has been held that while considering the nature of appointment, the substance and not the nomenclature used in the order of appointment has to be seen. Mere mentioning of ad hoc, temporary, etc. in the order of appointment would not change the real nature of appointment. The nature of appointment in the case of petitioner was quite evidently for reasons detailed hereinabove contractual/fixed term and not regularnotwithstanding that in the letter of appointment dated 30.01.2008 the petitioner was stated to be a probationer.