IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Chapter VIII, Rule 32(2) (b) Description of case Writ Petition No. 217 of 2004 (S/B) Date of decision: 17th August, 2004 For the approval of: Hon’ble Chief Justice V.S. Sirpurkar. Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.C.S. Rawat. - Whether the order/judgment should be sent to the reporters for reporting? ( ) - Whether the reporters be allowed to see the judgment? ( ) A IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL, NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 217 of 2004(S/B) Prem Singh Chauhan and one another .................... Petitioner Versus H.N.B. Garhwal University and another .................... Respondents. ........ Sri Vikas Pande, Adv. i/b Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri J.P. Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents. Coram: Hon. V.S.Sirpurkar, C.J. Hon. J.C.S. Rawat, J. Dated: August 17, 2004 P.C. 1. Heard finally with the consent of Mr. Vikas Pande, advocate, who appeared on behalf of Sri V.B.S. Negi, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. J.P.Joshi, learned counsel for the H.N.B. University, Srinagar (Garhwal). 2. We do not find any merit in this writ petition since the appointment of the petitioners was for a specific period. The petitioners were appointed for a fixed period as a part time lecturer. In this petition, the petitioners are challenging the advertisement. We do not see any reason as to how an advertisement can be challenged just because the petitioners were working as part time lecturer and that too for a specified period. however, form the advertisement itself, we see that the persons, like petitioners, have a benefit of preference, with is apparent from the look of the advertisement. We think that this is sufficient protection to the petitioners. In view of this, the petition is dismissed. (J.C.S.Rawat, J.) (V.S.Sirpurkar, C.J.) 17.08.2004 17.8.2004 A