( 1 ) THE petitioner, was taken as a Senior Scientific Officer Grade-11 by the Indian Institute of Technology, (IIT for short), for the Centre known as I. T. M. M. E. C. Centre pursuant to an advertisement being No. 7/86. The petitioner pleads that she held at the time a degree of M. Tech in Modem Methods of Chemical Analysis and Control from IIT, Delhi, and. that in the advertisement, referred to above, following areas for which appointment was supposed to be considered were indicated:

1. Lubricants and Lubrication. 2. Friction and wear, 3. Condition Monitoring and Maintenance Engineering. 4. Performance diagnostics and dynamics.

( 2 ) THE petitioner contends that this advertisement did not indicate that the post was of a temporary nature, and accordingly in terms of the statute of the IIT it was deemed to be in respect to a permanent post, and on that sumption, the petitioner applied, and after due selection process by a statutory Selection Committee, was selected for the aforesaid post, and was offered the same by letter dated 31. 12. 86.

( 3 ) WHILE stating, however, that this offer of appointment did indicate that the appointment would be on a temporary basis for a period of one year in the first instance; she contended that this being at variance to the terms advertised, the appointment was to be treated as on permanent basis.

( 4 ) THE petitioner contends that she was given to understand that these were standard terms of appointment, and that earlier also scientific officers who were taken on this basis, were confirmed, and that the rules of the Institute provided for confirmation of all temporary employees, and that it was not a tenure post, nor was the appointment contractual nor by way of ad hoc arrangement, and it was offered in such a manner that the petitioner either had to take it or leave it. She pleads that in face of the gross inequality of bargaining power, the petitioner had no choice but to accept the appointment assured of the fact that the rules of the Institute provided for confirmation of all temporary employees. According to the petitioner, her acceptance of the offer was put up for approval of the Chairman of the Board of Governors of IIT, and she was given appointment letter dated 16. 1. 87 after approval of the Chairman, formally appointing her as SSO Grade II, with effect from 31. 12. 86 (A. N. ). This appointment was subsequently extended by a period of one year by Institute s Memorandum dated 2. 12. 87.

( 5 ) THE petitioner alleges that prior to her extension, she was given to understand that her appointment bad been justified for a special Instrument (Emission Spectrometer), but the said Instrument expected from Norwegian grant failed to arrive, but she was informed by the Head of Department Prof. O. P. Chawla that notwithstanding this position, it had been decided that she would continue. serving as SSO II in the Centre, and they had decided to utilise her services for other jobs, and that her regularisation would be proposed during the second year of her term according to rules. She asserted that the Head of Department had even shown her his recommendation to allay her apprehensions, and she was informed that there were a number of other sophisticated instruments for which they needed persons of the calibre of the petitioner, and it was in this background that by Memorandum dated 2. 12. 87, her term was extended for another one year.

( 6 ) IT is further averred in the writ petition that the said Instrument eventually arrived and was handed over to the I. T. M. M. E. C. Centre on 28. 11. 88, but since it was purchased from Institute s funds, it was being treated as a Central facility though lodged in ITMMEC Cetre which, according to the petitioner, is an internal arrangement of the IIT. She pleads that during her employment, her work was duly appreciated, and as far back as in 1974, the Board of Governors had resolved that all temporary workers, including those working against