the petitioner from 01.08.1990 to 31.03.1991. This letter is a vindication of the petitioner's contention that there had been no termination in between, for as otherwise the tenor of the letter by the college to the University would have been only to seek for fresh permission for appointment on temporary or regular basis. The letter seeking for extension from 01.08.1990 to 31.03.1991 ought to, therefore, mean that there had been no breakage of the petitioner any time after 01.08.1989 till the letter was written on 13.11.1990. Ex.P3 has elicited a response from the University through Annexure R2 which states that such a permission was not accorded and that the University was calling upon the college to advertise the post afresh on permanent basis. It is in that context that filing of the writ petition in CWP No.3535 of 1991 assumes significance. In that writ petition, there is a prayer for regularization of services and for a restraint against the respondents from terminating her services. This again would mean that the petitioner was still continuing in service and if she had been already terminated, there ought to have been an order of termination or the prayer in the writ petition itself would have been for quashing the order of termination. A preventive injunctive relief sought by the petitioner would only show that on the date of filing of the petition, she continued in service. The nature of order passed by the High Court on 06.03.1991 will also show that she continued in service till 6th March, 1991, for the Court was allowing for a period of one month for the DPI to take a decision and it granted also a liberty to the college to keep the petitioner in service or not. There was surely, therefore, the period of one month before when the decision was to be taken and till that time, there was nothing to show that she had again served with an order of termination.
