IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPT No.10631 of 2008 Date of Decision: October 13, 2011 Nirupam Chaudhary ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Himmat Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.3. __________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Chemistry in Government Senior Secondary School, Raja- ka-Talab, District Kangra, on contract basis, in the year 2001. Her contract for the session 2002-03 was renewed. However, it was not renewed for the session 2003-04, because her conduct and performance as a teacher were Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É found to be unsatisfactory. So, she filed an Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, in the year 2004. On account of abolition of that Tribunal in the year 2008, the matter has come to this Court and has been re-registered as the present petition. 2. Petitioner’s case is that respondent No.3 Ms. Anita Dhiman, Principal of Govt. Senior Secondary School, Raja-ka-Talab, is prejudiced against her and because of this she has not renewed her contract and as a matter of fact, there was no serious lapse in the performance of her duties as a teacher and that minor lapse, if any, was owing to the fact that the petitioner had matrimonial dispute with her husband, which resulted in divorce and thereafter he filed a petition for custody of child, born out of their wedlock, and this upset her. 3. Respondents, in their reply, have stated that petitioner had not been performing her duty properly and had not been taking classes, because of which show cause notice was also served upon her, but she did not submit any satisfactory reply and so, her contract was not renewed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. É3É 5. Petitioner has not placed on record copy of the contract that was executed between the parties. Respondents have, however, shown the contract from their record and as per contract, there is a condition in clause 3(iii), which shows that in case the performance of the petitioner as a teacher is not found to be satisfactory or she is found to be guilty of some other act of misconduct or misbehaviour, her services can be terminated, at any stage. In the present case, respondents despite having a right to terminate the services of the petitioner, did not have recourse to the aforesaid condition, but did not renew her contract, when it lapsed on 31.3.2003. So, no fault can be found with the action of the respondents, especially when there is nothing on record to substantiate the allegation that respondent No.3-Principal of the school was having bias or prejudice against the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed. October 13, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.