IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.24034 of 2011 Date of decision : 22.12.2011 Bhwana Monga ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Manoj Makkar, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the instant writ petition can be disposed of in limine. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the action of respondents in restricting the appointment of the petitioner for a period not exceeding six months and also enforcing the agreement. It is further stated that she is facing apprehension of termination and the consequent replacement of her services by another employee on similar terms. Upon appraisal of the averments made in the petition, I am of the opinion that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is without any basis. There is no suggestive material which would show that the respondents are resorting to any process of replacing the services of the petitioner by another employee on similar terms. She C.W.P.No.24034 of 2011 -2- has accepted the appointment on the terms which were prescribed which limited it to six months and, therefore, she cannot turn around to contend that her appointment be not restricted for a period of six months. The petitioner being a contractual employee, her services can be terminated at any time after the contract is over and also during the subsistence of the contract if her work and conduct is found to be unsatisfactory. Her grievance can arise only if her services are sought to be replaced by another contractual employee in which eventuality she earn a right to be considered. For the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is disposed of with an observation that the petitioner be not removed from service by another employee on contract basis in case a need to employ such person subsists. Her services can, however, be terminated during the subsistence of the contract if her work and conduct is found to be wanting and not to the satisfaction of the employer. 22.12.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss