CWP No. 4843 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 4843 of 2010(O&M) Decided on : 31-01-2011 Naresh Kumar ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.Nand Lal Sammi , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J In this writ petition, the petitioner claims that he has completed 240 days and therefore his termination is bad. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner was appointed pursuant to the outsourcing policy of the Government dated 1.9.2006 according to following terms:- “In emergent cases involving public interest, where the sanctioned vacant post of Group 'C & D' categories exist, term engagement can be made for a period not exceeding six months on wages fixed by the Deputy Commissioner under the Minimum Wages Act, for which no approval of Finance Department shall be required. If however, it is proposed to pay higher wages, then approval of Finance Department will have to be obtained, giving proper justification. During these six months the department will endeavour to make regular CWP No. 4843 of 2010(O&M) 2 appointment... Provided that if for any reason, the process of recruitment cannot be completed within six months then approval of Finance Department shall be obtained, giving justification, for a term engagement for a further period of six months..... It is clarified that persons so engaged shall not have any legal right claiming regularization of their services etc. in the departments where they have been engaged...” The petitioner whose services have since been dispensed with says that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and that the termination is bad. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the instant petition is totally mis-conceived. The petitioner walked into the employment with open eyes which was tenure appointment of six months extendable by another six months and upon the extinguishment of the tenure he has been relieved of his duties. A person is bound by a contractual employment which terms are distinctly laid down in the appointment letter and cannot thus claim upon the expiry of such terms that his being relieved from service is arbitrary as no right accrues to him to question such a termination of an arrangement unless he pleads and shows to the Court that his services being dispensed with, is borne from an arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents which may be reflected in the retention of some employees as a measure of replacement of the services of the petitioner and further in the absence of any unwarranted conduct being attributed to the petitioner. CWP No. 4843 of 2010(O&M) 3 None of these facts has been established from the perusal of the material on record. Consequently, the instant petition is held to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. January 31, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge