IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 16624 of 2008 Decided on : 18.3.2011 Harnek Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 Yes For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, Advocate, vice Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Assistant Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has prayed mainly the following relief: (i) That the impugned order dated 23.4.2002 be quashed and set-aside and the respondents may be directed that the applicant may be held in continuous service of the respondents w.e.f.26.4.2002 alongwith all consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Instructor (Welder) on 23.10.2000 on contract basis with respondent No.3 on consolidated salary of ` 3344/- per month for a period of 89 days. The contract of the petitioner was renewed for 89 days on consolidated salary of ` 5480/- . The contract of the petitioner was lastly revised for 89 days on 28.1.2002. The 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2 respondents terminated the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 26.4.2002 on completion of 89 days vide order dated 23.4.2002. On receiving the termination order dated 23.4.2002, the petitioner met the competent authority and represented for renewal of his contract. The petitioner was assured that he will be re-engaged as Instructor (Welder) on contract basis when the post of Instructor (Welder) will be filled in on contract basis. 3. The petitioner vide communication dated 29.8. 2002 was called for interview in the office of respondent No.2 on 5.9.2002 for the post of Instructor (Welder), but petitioner was not given appointment as Instructor (Welder). It is the stand of the petitioner that as per the Handbook on Personnel Matters under Chapter 16, the appointment has been defined under para 16.35 which provides that any appointment which is not made in accordance with the provisions of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules will be ‘adhoc’. The respondents under the garb of ‘contract appointment’ instead of ‘adhoc appointment’ cannot be allowed to introduce the policy of hire and fire. The stipulation contained in the offer of appointment that appointment would be terminated on completion of 89 days is un-reasonable and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The ‘contract appointment’ in substance is ‘adhoc appointment’ and once ‘adhoc appointment’ is made against a vacant post, such an adhoc appointee is entitled to continue till the post is regularly filled. The stipulation made in the contract of appointment as also in the appointment letter that the appointment would come to an end after completion of 89 days 3 cannot be enforced against the petitioner as the same is un- reasonable and arbitrary. 4. The respondent No.3 sought explanation from the petitioner on 24.11.2001 that he marked his attendance on the register though he was absent. The petitioner filed reply to the explanation that attendance has been marked in wrong column due to inadvertence. The contract of petitioner was renewed after explanation was sought from the petitioner. The service of the petitioner was terminated on 23.4.2002. The petitioner was legitimately expecting that the explanation given by him was found satisfactory. 5. The petition has been contested by the respondents by filing reply and it has been stated that petitioner was appointed as Instructor (Welder) vide order dated 23.10.2000 on contract basis and thereafter his contract was renewed on expiry of 89 days from time to time. The petitioner was found absent for some days and the Principal of the Industrial Training Institute had marked him absent but the petitioner after return had erased remarks of absence from the attendance register by using razor blade and marked his presence. An inquiry was conducted and explanation of the petitioner was called. After due inquiry, it was found that the petitioner had tampered with the attendance register which amounts to misconduct as per para 3 of the contract appointment. In these circumstances, the respondents after taking lenient view keeping in view the career of the petitioner decided not to renew his contract after 26.4.2002 even though the act of the petitioner amounted to offence punishable under Section 465 IPC. 4 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was lastly appointed on contract basis vide office order dated 28.1.2002 Annexure A-3 for 89 days. The service of the contract appointee could be terminated in case of misconduct under para 3 of office order Annexure A-3. The petitioner accepted the contract appointment vide office order Annexure A-3 wherein it has been specifically provided that his engagement was for 89 days w.e.f. 28.1.2002 and his engagement shall automatically cease to be effective. The petitioner having accepted the terms and conditions of office order dated 28.1.2002 cannot be heard to say that his appointment was adhoc and not for 89 days under the contract. The terms and conditions of the petitioner were governed by office order dated 28.1.2002. It is the stand of the respondents that petitioner tampered the attendance register, his explanation was called and it was found that he tampered the attendance register which according to respondents amounted to offence punishable under Section 465 IPC. The respondents instead of reporting the matter to the police took lenient view in terminating the services of the petitioner vide office order dated 23.4.2002 Annexure A-4 in accordance with the appointment order dated 28.1.2002 of the petitioner. There is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. ( Kuldip Singh ), March 18, 2011. Judge. (GR)