IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.5044 of 2010 Date of decision : 11.5.2011 Ajmer Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.A.K.Singh Goyat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner was working on contractual basis and his term came to an end in July 2009. Although the case of the petitioner is that he is still working with the respondents but the respondents have denied the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a reference to Annexure P-5 to state that the need still subsists and the post is also lying vacant. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that no right accrues to the petitioner to insist on employment on the ground that the work still subsists and the post is also lying vacant. The contractual employment would not entitled him to claim employment unless he demonstrates that some other person has been C.W.P.No.5044 of 2010 -2- appointed in his place on the similar terms and conditions. There is no such material on record. The petition is thus held to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, if the need subsists and the respondents are desirous of filling up the post, they are at liberty to consider the claim of the petitioner in view of the fact that he has already worked with them. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to approach this Court if he is replaced by a person on similar terms as those of the petitioner. 11.5.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss