IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 28 of 2008 1. Birendra Singh Rawat S/o Sri Surat Singh Rawat, R/o F&G Street No. 3, Open Market, Bourari, New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal. 2. Ramesh Chandra Sanwal S/o Sri Amba Dutt, R/o Near GIR Garur, District Bageshwar (UK). 3. Sudarshan Singh S/o Sri Prithivi Singh, R/o Village Devli, P.O. Ladoli, District Rudraprayag. ……… Appellant Versus 1. Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. Secretary, Nayay and Vidhi Paramarshi (LR), Uttarakhand. ……... Respondents Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. V.K. GUPTA, C. J. (Oral) We have heard Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. We have also perused the impugned judgment dated 17th March, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 192 of 2008 (S/S). We have been taken through various annexures, including the appointment orders of the appellants as well as the order dated 18th December, 2007, whereby extension upto 31st March, 2008 was granted in so far as the service of the appellants is concerned. We have no doubt in our minds that the appellants were appointed purely on contract basis as Panel Lawyers to conduct criminal cases in the trial courts. The appellants were not appointed as either Assistant Public Prosecutors or Addl. Public Prosecutors or Public Prosecutors. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that, because the appellant were appointed as Panel Lawyers against the posts in the cadre, they have a right to continue in service till regular incumbents are appointed, is not at all tenable in law because as far as the appellants are concerned, their right to continue, based upon the contract of appointment, is only uptill the time the contract subsists. Since, in their cases, it has clearly been spelt out that their contract subsists till 31st March, 2008, beyond that date, they have no right to continue at all. The appeal is dismissed in limine. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C. J.) 28.03.2008 28.03.2008 G