THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 7177 /2008. Decided on: 5.11.2009 Madan Lal …Petitioner -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Acting Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Aditional Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General. ________________________________________________________________________ The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (Hindi) on contract basis in the Government Senior Secondary School, Holi District Chamba with effect from 20.7.1996 to 11.6.1997. Thereafter he worked on contract basis with effect from 8.9.1997 to 28.2.1998 in the Government Senior Secondary School, Sundla. He worked in the same capacity with effect from 1.4.1998 to 28.2.1999 and 22.3.1999 to 16.5.2000 in the same school I.e. Government Senior Secondary School, sundla. His services were terminated with effect from 17.5.2000 on the joining of a regular hand. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate has argued that the respondents have not followed the principle of “last come first go”. He then contended that the action of the respondents of terminating the services of the petitioner on 17.5.2000 is illegal and arbitrary. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the termination of the petitioner. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. The appointment of the petitioner was on contract basis, as noticed above. He has been replaced after the joining of a regular hand. The petitioner has no vested right to continue after her replacement by a regular hand. This Court cannot re-write the contract. The appointment on contract basis is for a specific period/tenure. Mr.Dilip Sharma has also submitted that after the filing of the petition, the petitioner was re-engaged. If it is so, the respondents have to take necessary consequential steps the manner in which the seniority has to be assigned to the petitioner for the period of break in service in accordance with law. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition stands disposed of. No costs. (R.B. Misra) Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 5.11.2009 *awasthi*