IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 18862 OF 2007 DATE OF DECISION: March 27, 2008 Parties Name Ms. Beena Devi ..PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. C. PURI PRESENT: Ms. Renu Bala Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana, for the respondents. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) Order. Petitioner was appointed on contract basis as Guest Faculty Lecturer (Hindi). In the month of February, 2007, when the work load was less in the School, she was relieved from her post. She has filed this writ petition with a prayer that directions be issued to the respondents to allow her to continue as Guest Faculty Lecturer beyond the period, as referred to above. In response to notice issued, reply has been filed, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner being a contract employee cannot claim continuation in service. A similar matter came up for consideration before this Court in Baldev Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, C.W.P. No. 387 of 2007. While considering similar controversy, it was observed thus: CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 18862 OF 2007 -2- “It is, thus, clear that the claim of the petitioners for quashing the condition of limiting the period of their appointment does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity which may warrant interference of this Court. In the Constitutional Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi & others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the State to engage employees on contract basis by taking into account the requirement of work. The petitioners can neither impose themselves upon the respondents nor they can be allowed to continue beyond the period for which they were engaged as Guest Faculty Teachers. The petitioners also cannot be allowed to continue till regular appointments are made, as Guest Faculty Teachers are appointed only to tide over the situations like death, retirement, resignation, promotion, etc.” In view of ratio of judgment, referred to above, no case is made out for interference at the instance of the petitioner. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( K. C. Puri ) March 27, 2008. Judge DKC