IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7687 OF 2005 DATE OF DECISION: February 22, 2008 Parties Name Amrit Sharma and others ..PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Y.P.Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana, for the respondents.- 1 to 3. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) Order. Petitioners were taken in service in the year 1997 as a Sanskrit Teachers, on contract basis, for a period of 89 days. Terms and conditions of their appointment read thus: “i. This offer of appointment is purely contractual for a limited period of 89 days and the same will stand automatically terminated on afternoon of 89th days or on joining a regular hand whichever is earlier. ii. That the contract can also be terminated at any time during the tenure without notice and without assigning any reason. iii. That you will not have any claim or continuation of service after expiry of the contractual period. iv. No TA/DA will be paid to you for joining this post. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7687 OF 2005 -2- v. You will have to stay at the place of posting.” On joining the regular candidates, petitioners' services were terminated in May, 1998. They kept mum and remained satisfied with the order passed. In the year 2003, after about five years, they filed writ petition in this Court. The same was disposed of by directing the respondents to dispose of their pending representations, which have now been rejected vide orders dated March 26, 2004, June 10, 2004 and June 21, 2004, (copies Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-6 respectively). Hence this writ petition. We are of the view that on account of delay and laches, petitioners are not entitled to get any relief. Their services were terminated in the year 1998. They kept mum and woke up from slumber only in the year 2003. Under similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 6753 of 2003, titled as Maya Wati v. State of Haryana, has observed thus: “The petitioner has approached the Court after a gap of more than five years of her being relieved on account of joining of the regular selected candidate. She has tried to explain the delay by asserting that she had sent legal notice through her counsel on 14.9.2002 but we have not felt impressed. In such matters, delay of more than three years has to be treated fatal to the claim of the petitioners. In State of Madhya Pradesh and another v. Bhailal Bhai and others, AIR 1964 SC 1006, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court made an indepth examination of and held as under: CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7687 OF 2005 -3- The provisions of the Limitation Act do not as such apply to the granting of relief under Article 226. However, the maximum period fixed by the Legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil Court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be measured. The Court may consider the delay unreasonable even it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy but where the delay is more than this period, it will almost always be proper for the Court to hold that it is unreasonable. The proposition laid down in Bhailal Bhai's case (supra) was reiterated in slightly different words by another Constitution Bench in M/S Tilokchand Motichand and others v. H.B.Munshi and another, AIR 1970 SC 898. The latter decision has been approved by a Constitution Bench of nine Judges in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Etc. v. Union of India etc., JT 1996(1) S.C. 283.” Contention of counsel for the petitioners that after the decision on their representation, fresh cause of action has accrued to them, is liable to be rejected. Representation filed by them was not a statutory representation. As is apparent from the records, their service was only temporary and on contract basis. A Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 387 of 2007 (Baldev Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others), decided on August 30, 2007, has held that the contract employees have no right what- so-ever to remain on the post. If some junior was allowed to remain in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7687 OF 2005 -4- service on account of the fact that regularly selected candidate was not appointed in that School, that is of no help to the petitioner to remain in service. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( Jaswant Singh) February 22, 2008. Judge DKC