IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.1859 of 2011 Date of decision : 17.3.2011 Shri Bhagwan ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.S.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that he was appointed on contractual basis initially for six months and the period was extended from time to time. He further says that he was relieved from service, which was contractual in nature, in the year 2009. His apprehension is that the respondents are going to replace his services by another set of contractual employees. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition is misconceived. The order dispensing with the services of the petitioner after expiry of the contract was passed in the year 2009 and till 2011 no such material has been shown from where it could be inferred that the services of the petitioner are being replaced by another set of contractual C.W.P.No.1859 of 2011 -2- employees. Apart from the fact that the writ petition is hit by delay and laches, it does not demonstrate any right in favour of the petitioner and violation thereof which could prompt this Court to interfere in the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for permission to withdraw the instant writ petition. Dismissed as withdrawn. 17.3.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss