IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 5723 of 2008 (OA No.795 of 1999 Date of decision: 17.6.2010 Kamal Kishore ….. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P.& Ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. J.R. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, J(Oral). The petitioner in the petition has prayed a direction to the respondents to re-engage the petitioner as a Maintenance Mechanic, at the place where he was working prior to the termination of his contractual employment on the same terms and conditions, with further direction that the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as Maintenance Mechanic and he may be regularized as such. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Maintenance Mechanic on contract basis and was posted as such in the Industrial Training Institute for a period of 89 days. The service of the petitioner was terminated as Maintenance Mechanic. It has been Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… alleged that some other similarly situate persons were still working with the respondents. The respondents adopted the policy of pick and choose and terminated the services of the petitioner. The appointment of the petitioner, in the first instance was for a period of 89 days. He was appointed vide office order dated 20.10.1998 annexure A-1. On 22.1.1999 the petitioner was informed that the time of his contractual appointment of 89 days was going to end on 22.1.1999. The services of the petitioner were dispensed with after 22.1.1999 and he was thrown out on the road. The respondents have got work and funds for the post and therefore, they are liable to appoint the petitioner on regular basis on the post of Maintenance Mechanic. It has been submitted that some similarly situate persons had approached the erstwhile Tribunal and the Tribunal was pleased to order that those who had rendered service on contract basis must be allowed to do so till regularly appointed persons join those posts. On these facts, the petitioner has prayed the relief noticed above. 3. The petition has been contested by respondents by filing reply. It has been submitted that engagement of the petitioner was not made in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. In fact the engagement of the petitioner was stop-gap arrangement for a short period. The petitioner has no right for regularization nor he has any right to remain in service after the expiry of specific period contrary to the stipulation of the agreement whereas the process of regular appointment is carried out by the Himachal Pradesh Service Commission/ Subordinate Selection Board which takes time for …3… finalization of selection process. It has been submitted that the engagement of the petitioner was nothing but a type of back door entry. The case of the respondents is that the contract period for which the petitioner was engaged was already over and now he has no right for re-engagement. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the petition. The rejoinder was filed by the petitioner in which he has reiterated his case. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The office order dated 20.10.1998 Annexure A-1 indicates that petitioner was engaged as Maintenance Mechanic on a consolidated sum of Rs.2500/- for 89 days from 26.1.1998 to 22.1.1999. Thereafter the engagement of petitioner would automatically cease to be effective i.e. services of the petitioner shall stand terminated. The petitioner himself has pleaded in the petition that his services were dispensed with/terminated after 22.1.1999 and he was thrown out on the road by the respondents. The petitioner has prayed re-engagement on the same terms and for regularization as Maintenance Mechanic. The stand of the respondents is that petitioner was engaged as stop gap arrangement for 89 days which came to an end on 22.1.1999 as per annexure A-1. It is also the stand of the respondents that for regular selection the candidates are required to appear in the competition which consisting of written test and oral interview. The interviews are conducted by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission/Subordinate Selection Board. The contract appointment was made only as stop gap arrangement due to exigencies of work. …4… The contract engagement, if allowed to continue would amount to back door entry dehors the rules. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any Rule, Policy and Scheme of the Government under which a person who was engaged for 89 days is entitled for re-engagement and regularization after the termination of contract. The petitioner was engaged for a fix period from 26.10.1998 to 22.1.1999. The engagement of the petitioner came to an end under the contract. The petitioner had filed Original Application in the erstwhile Tribunal and on 1.3.1999 got interim order in his favour. The petitioner cannot take benefit of interim order dated 1.3.1999 so as to seek directions from the Court for his re-engagement after 22.1.1999 and his regularization as Maintenance Mechanic. 6. The post of regular Maintenance Mechanic is required to be filled up as per rules by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission/Subordinate Selection Board on the basis of written competition and oral interview. In the teeth of Recruitment and Promotion Rules and law laid down by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Uma Devi (3) and others (2006) 4 SCC (1) no direction can be given to the respondents to re-engage the petitioner as Maintenance Mechanic on regular post and regularize the service of petitioner on the post of Maintenance Mechanic post. There is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 1.3.1999 stands vacated. June 17, 2010 (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge.