CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8858 of 1991 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8858 of 1991 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 15, 2011 Dr. Devi Dass ..Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: None for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction for the respondents not to terminate his services and also for quashing the impugned order, whereby his services have been terminated. To an extent, this relief is contradictory in itself. Apparently, the services of the petitioner have been so terminated, which is even averred in the petition. The petitioner apparently appointed on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange with Primary Health Centres claims to have been selected by the Departmental Selection Committee. He, however, conceded that his appointment was on ad 1 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8858 of 1991 hoc basis for a period of 6 months and maximum for a period of 9 months from the date of joining or till any recommendee of Haryana Public Service Commission joined. Averring that the petitioner had completed more than one year and two months and that there was no regular appointment made by the Haryana Public Service commission, the petitioner has claimed a right to continue in service. On coming to know that the Department is going to remove him from service, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The State has filed reply saying that the petition is not maintainable. Reference is made to the appointment letter, which contained a stipulation that his appointment would not be extended beyond 9 months. Reference is made to order passed in CWP No. 1178 of 1991 titled as Dr. Rajinder Kumar Versus State of Haryana, which has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 25.1.1991. Copy of the same is also annexed with the reply as Annexure R-1. Number of writ petitions containing similar issue were dismissed by this Court and details of these writ petitions have also been mentioned in the reply. Mr. Nehra also points out that the termination has taken place in the year 1991 and there is neither any cause pleaded or made out for the petitioner to be put back into service. An ad hoc employee, who was relieved in 1991, perhaps would not have much cause to plead at this belated stage. No case for interference, thus, is made out. Dismissed. July 15, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE 2