IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 177 of 2011 Decided on: 22.09.2011 Nirmala Devi …Petitioner. Versus Vijay Chauhan …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) The writ petition filed by the petitioner was rejected, but the following observations were made: “Sh. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the regular employee i.e. respondent No. 4 was earlier posted somewhere else and now she has been posted at Kasauli. In my view, a contract teacher who has joined later can not have any grievance against the posting of a regular employee in an ITI. However, in case, there is any vacancy of Instructor in the trade to which the petitioner belongs, the petitioner shall be employed against the said vacancy. In case, the petitioner joins the said post, it is fine and in case the petitioner does not join her name will not be considered under these directions.” 2. Thereafter, the respondent offered appointment to the petitioner at ITI Jawali, but she did not join. It appears that she was interested that she should be adjusted at Kasauli or a nearby 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2 :- place. Once the petitioner had been offered appointment, then it was not for her to decide whether she should be posted in a place of her choice or in which trade she should be offered appointment. She should have joined at ITI Jawali. This was a case of indulgence shown by the respondent to the Court. It was made clear that if she does not join, she will not be given any appointment. 3. Therefore, I find no merit in the contempt petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (Deepak Gupta) Judge September 22, 2011 (rajni)