JUDGMENT

P. K. MOHANTY, J. : The petitioner calls in question the order terminating her service in accordance with the terms and condi¬tions of appointment (Annexure - 3) and has prayed for the fol¬lowing reliefs :

“Under these circumstances the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to pass a Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why

(i) the order under Annexure-3 shall not be quashed;

(ii) it shall not be declared that the petitioner is deemed to be continuing in service under the opposite parties;

(iii) it shall not be declared that the petitioner is deemed to be confirmed in the Bank service on the expiry of 3 years form the date of her joining in the Bank services;

(iv) it shall not be declared that the confirmation test as postulated in Annexure-1 is ultra vires of the Bank’s Regulation, 1979 and the same cannot be enforced against the petitioner;

(v) the orders under Annexure-4 series dated 28.11.1990 and 18.3.1991 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner shall not be declared illegal;

(vi) it shall not be declared that the confirmation test held on 19.8.1990 is bad and illegal and the result thereof in respect of the petitioner is also illegal;

(vii) it shall not be declared that the petitioner is entitled to all the service benefits being a confirmed officer of the Bank on the expiry of the period of 3 years form the date of joining in the Bank services.

2. The short facts of the petitioner’s case is that she was appointed as a Management Trainee in the Punjab National Bank being duly selected by the Banking Service Recruitment Board, Delhi on the terms and conditions as laid in Annexure-1 dated July 28, 1986. She was asked to appear in the confirmation test scheduled to be held on 29.5.1988 but despite miscarriage of conception, she appeared at the test but failed. She again was asked to appear on 5.9.1989 at the confirmation test and because of her pregnancy she could not appear at the test. The petitioner again appeared at the confirmation test held on 19.8.1990 but failed. By order dated 9.11.1990, the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that she could not succeed in the confirmation test in terms of the appointment order. She filed an appeal but the same was rejected and, hence, the present writ application.

3. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the services of the petitioner have no relationship with the conditions imposed in the appointment order. The petitioner having rendered services for a maximum period of probation is deemed to have been confirmed after expiry of the said period as no extension thereafter was permissible. Once this period is over, the termination order is bad. Non-passing of the confirmation test, according to the petitioner, cannot be a disqualification since the test is not contemplated under the Punjab and National Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1977 and Punjab National Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979. The terms and conditions imposed upon the petitioner in the appointment order are ultra vires the regula¬tions framed by the Bank in exercise of statutory power. The Bank having imposed different conditions of service other than the Nationalised Banks, the same is discriminatory and contrary to the public policy. The petitioner having not been able to appear at the test due to her physical disability, she ought to have been offered another chance like other officers of the Bank, namely, Miss. Indubala, Brijen Kousal, Kanwarjeet Singh, Kajli Thomas and W.J.Minz.

4. The opposite parties in their counter affidavit denied the claim made by the petitioner. It is the specific case of the opposite parties that the termination of the petitioner’s service is strictly as per the terms and conditions of contract of appointment. The petitioner having accepted the terms and conditions of appointment as contained in the appointment order, she is estopped