Civil Writ Petition No. 65417 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 6541 of 2011 Date of Decision : 19.4.2011 **** Sarika Manchanda ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ......... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. **** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing the order dated 12.3.2008, passed by the Secretary, Punjab School Education Board, whereby the services of the petitioner along with others, was relieved, on completion of the contract period, for which she was appointed. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as E.T.T. Teacher on contract basis in Adarsh Senior Secondary School Bhagoo, District Mukatsar on a consolidated pay of Rs. 6825/- per month. She fulfills the requisite qualification. There are large number of substantive posts of E.T.T. Teachers lying vacant in the State of Punjab in various Government Schools but the State is not filling up the said Civil Writ Petition No. 65417 of 2011 -2- posts, rather resorted to recruit E.T.T. Teachers on contract basis. Initially the petitioner was appointed 7.9.2007, which was extended upto 31.3.2008. Thereafter the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 12.3.2008 w.e.f. 31.3.2008 (Annexure P- 2), which is impugned herein. He contends that two other persons namely Ninder Kaur, who was appointed in February, 2008 and was relieved on 31.3.2008, like the petitioner, has again been appointed on 18.7.2008 and is still continuing. Similarly, Harmandeep Singh, who is a Drawing Teacher was appointed in Adarsh School, Bhagoo in August, 2007 and relieved on 31.3.2008, has again been re- appointed on 28.8.2008 and is still continuing in service. He contends that persons, who were appointed subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner, have been re- appointed, whereas the petitioner has not been re-appointed. He thus, submits that the principle of 'last come first go' have not been complied with, as the petitioner had a prior right of appointment than the two mentioned hereinabove. In support of this contention, he relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sunita Sharma vs. State of Haryana, 1997(3) S.C.T. 513. He further contends that Adarsh Senior Secondary School Bhagoo, District Mukatsar still has a vacancy available and requisition has already been sent to the Secretary, Punjab School Education Board, Mohali for filling up the said vacancy, but despite that request, the respondent-Board has not proceeded to appoint any person on the said post and the same is lying vacant. He on this Civil Writ Petition No. 65417 of 2011 -3- basis prays that the petitioner be directed to be appointed on the post of E.T.T. Teacher, which is lying vacant with Adarsh Senior Secondary School Bhagoo, District Mukatsar. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. It is not in dispute that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on contract basis that too for a period specified therein. The period having expired, the petitioner was accordingly relieved from her services. Mere appointment on contract basis does not confer any right, except for what is provided for and is the terms of the contract of appointment. In the said contractual appointment, the term was clearly specified and on expiry of the said period the petitioner was rightly relieved from service. The appointment of two persons namely Ninder Kaur and Harmandeep Singh, who were also appointed on contractual basis for a specified period have been again appointed on a fresh contract, does not confer any right on the petitioner for appointment merely because she was appointed on contractual basis earlier to these persons especially when the post on which the petitioner was appointed has not been occupied by these persons. That apart as per the petitioner herself, Ninder Kaur and Harmandeep Singh were also relieved from service on 31.3.2008 as the petitioner, therefore, it is not a case where persons appointed subsequently were retained in service while relieving the earlier appointed person(s). The principle of 'last come first go' would not be applicable in such circumstances. Further this principle would not apply to a pure contractual appointment, whereof the terms and Civil Writ Petition No. 65417 of 2011 -4- conditions are specified and especially when the period of appointment is also mentioned. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Sunita Sharma vs. State of Haryana (supra) is distinguishable, on the ground, that the appointment in that case was not a contractual or term appointment but was an appointment on ad hoc basis wherein the services of the petitioner were terminated, whereas the persons who were appointed on ad hoc basis subsequently were allowed to continue. The said judgment would not be applicable to the case in hand, as this is purely a contractual fixed term appointment of the petitioner. That apart, there is an inordinate, unexplained delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. The appointment of the petitioner came to an end on 31.3.2008 and the petitioner has approached this Court after a period of more than three years, which itself is enough to dislodge the claim of the petitioner. It would not be out of way to mention here another ground which would dis-entitle the petitioner from grant of the claim which she had made in the present writ petition i.e. Ninder Kaur and Harmandeep Singh have not been impleaded as respondent, as their rights are likely to be affected in case an order accepting the seniority of the petitioner over these persons is to be made the basis for giving appointment to the petitioner. Further, mere existence of a vacancy does not confer a right on a person to be appointed on the said post, especially, when the same has not been even advertised. It is the prerogative of the Civil Writ Petition No. 65417 of 2011 -5- employer to fill a vacancy, which is in existence and no direction can be issued by the Court for appointing a person on such a vacancy, which may be existing. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. 19.4.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE