IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No.2625 /2008 Decided on:25.5.2011 _____________________________________________ Ankush Kumar Garg. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No.1 to 5. None for respondent No.6. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was appointed as P.E.T. under the provisions of Para-Teachers’ Policy vide Annexure A-1 on 9.2.2004. He joined his duties in Government Middle School, Haral on 10.2.2004. However, the petitioner’s services were terminated on 16.2.2004 after the joining of regularly appointed teacher, i.e. respondent No.6. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 2. Mr. Naresh Kaul has strenuously argued that the petitioner had been appointed by a duly constituted Selection Committee and his services could not be terminated after joining by respondent No.6. 3. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has vehemently argued that the services of the petitioner have been terminated as per the provisions enumerated in Annexure A-1 dated 9.2.2004, which are in conformity with the Policy, i.e. Annexure R-1. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings meticulously. 5. Petitioner was selected for the post of PET (Para- Teacher). He was offered appointment vide letter dated 9.2.2004. He joined his duties on 10.2.2004. The services of the petitioner were terminated after joining of regular hand, i.e. respondent No.6. It is evident from condition No.2 enumerated in Annexure A-1 that services of the official will stand terminated on appointment of fresh appointee (direct or batch-wise) transferee or on not good performance. Similar clause has been mentioned in the Policy. It is thus evident that the services of the petitioner have been terminated as per conditions enumerated in Annexure A-1 read in conjunction with Policy Annexure R-1. 3 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 25.5.2011 *awasthi*