CWP No.17113 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … Date of decision: 30.10. 2006 Sunil Rani and another ..Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.M.Kumar Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.M.S.Bedi Present: Mr.Deepak Thapar,Advocate for the petitioner. M.M.Kumar,J.(Oral) The prayer made by the petitioner in the instant petition is for quashing of order dated 2.3.2006(Annexure P-12). The impugned order discloses that the petitioners were appointed as Masters on 89 basis days in the month of January,1997in the schools of District Sonepat. They were relieved from duty on 14.4.1997 on their completion of 89 days as per the terms and conditions of appointment. The claim of the petitioners for reconsideration of their case and to appoint them to the post of master has been rejected on the ground that they had raised the claim after a period of 7 years. Even otherwise, it has been held that the petitioner s were appointed only for a term. In accordance with their terms and conditions of appointment,they have been relieved. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the view that no legal infirmity could be ascertained from the impugned order. Having been appointed for a period of 89 days and discharged on its completion in the year 1997, no grievance made by the petitioners could be entertained after a period of 7 years. It has rightly been observed by the respondents in the impugned order that after the relieving of the petitioners, the post of Science Mistress/Social Science Mistress had been advertised and number of persons have been appointed on contract basis thereafter. The petitioners in any case did not have any right to CWP No.17113 of 2006 2 hold the post as they were merely contract employee. Accordingly, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE October 30,2006 (M.M.S.BEDI) nk JUDGE