C.R.No.5146 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.5146 of 2008 Date of Decision : 27.7.2009 Ritika ...Petitioner Versus Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa ...Respondents and another CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Inder Pal Goyat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.L.Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court accepting the appeal of the University and dismissing an application seeking ad interim injunction against dispensation of services of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Food Science and Technology for a period of one year till regular appointments are made, at a consolidated emoluments of Rs.13,500/- per month vide letter of appointment dated 7.9.2004. It was stipulated therein that her services can be terminated at any time without any notice and that she would cease to be in position after expiry of one year or till such date regular appointments as Lecturer are made by the University, whichever is earlier. C.R.No.5146 of 2008 2 It is the claim of the petitioner that on 3.11.2007, the Registrar, University has issued an officer order in terms of the orders of the Vice- Chancellor to permit the petitioner to continue as such, till the appointment of Readers in the Department of Food Science and Technology. However, subsequently the petitioner was not engaged by the University, which lead to filing of the suit, wherein the plaintiff claims that she is entitled to continue on contract basis till such time regular appointments against the posts of Reader were not made. Learned trial Court granted ad interim injunction, but the same has been set aside by the learned first Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in terms of order Annexure P-4, the services of the petitioner can be dispensed with only on appointment of regular Readers. Since, the regular Readers have not been appointed so far, therefore, she has right to continue on contract basis. The communication Annexure P-4 has to be read in terms of the initial appointment i.e. Annexure P-1, contemplating termination of appointment at any time without giving any notice. The communication Annexure P-4 will not confer any right on the petitioner to continue till regular appointment is made. It is for the University to consider whether services of the petitioner are required to be engaged on contract basis and for such time, which it may consider appropriate. However, the plaintiff has no right to claim by virtue of interim order to continue on contract basis. Even otherwise, the interim order granted to the plaintiff is in fact amounts to decree of the suit i.e. main relief claimed by the plaintiff C.R.No.5146 of 2008 3 in the suit as well. Therefore, by virtue of the interim order, her suit cannot be decreed and thereby defeat the rights of the defendant without trial. In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 27.7.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE