CWP (T) No.16206 of 2008. 23.12.2010 Present: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents. Respondent No.2 has yet not filed reply to the petition despite opportunity. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General, submits that communication sent by their office has also not been responded to. 2. My attention has been invited to the decision rendered by this Court in CWP (T) No.5253 of 2008 titled as Narain Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, copy of which is taken on record. Relying upon the decision rendered in Baldev Singh and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 293, the Court held that :- “14. There is no other point which has been agitated before us. This point is that the State must follow the principle of ‘first come to last go’ while dealing with the persons appointed without following the R&P rules. This Court vide a detailed interim order dated September 19, 2000 had directed the State Government to prepare a seniority list of all such appointees. We have found that in a number of cases, the officials of the State follow very devious and highly unethical method of ousting the employees who have been employed on contract earlier. We may give two examples of law this is done. Supposing a person ‘A” has been appointed as contract teacher and is posted at station ‘S’ for a long duration. The State, on regular selections being made, posts a regular appointee at station ‘S’. Person ‘A’ will be removed but the other person (s) who may have worked for a much shorter period as contract teachers(s) another stations are permitted to continue. Another method used is that after the person “A” has been removed, the regular appointee is transferred to some other station and a contract employee at some other station, who may have a much shorter tenure than “A” is brought to station “S”. Sometimes the second person is also removed and a fresh contract appointee is appointed. This practice cannot be permitted to continue. Therefore, we direct that the State shall follow the principle of ‘first come last go’ even in the case of contract employee(s). Whereby direct that though normally no appointments should be made de hors the rules, in case such appointments are made then the State must follow the principle of ‘last come first go’ while removing the persons not appointed in accordance with R&P rules. The State cannot raise the bogey that the appointments have been made by the school level or at the Tehsil level and therefore, it cannot follow this principle of ‘last come first go’. In case under the R&P rules the cadre to which a person is appointed is a State cadre, the State Government must follow the principle of ‘last come first go’ by taking all the employees in the State into consideration. In case of district cadre post, it will follow ‘first come last go’ principle in relation to the employees of the concerned district.” 3. In the instant case also, as is evident from order dated 29th December, 1998 (Annexure A-1), respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to continue to work at Dargi, District Shimla, till the time the post is filled up by a regular hand. Facts being similar. Directions issued in Narain Singh (supra), shall mutatis mutandis apply to the instant case also. Consequential action be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 4. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge December 23, 2010 CS