IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 515 of 2011-A Date of decision: 19.12.2011 Shri Raman Deep Singh S/O Sh. Surinder Singh, Resident of Village & P.O. Pandoga, Tehsil & Distt. Una, Himachal Pradesh. … Petitioner Versus 1 State of Himachal Pradesh through its Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. 2. The Director Higher Education Himachal Pradesh, Lalpani, Shimla, (H.P.) 3. The Principal, Government Senior Secondary School Nangal Jarialan, Tehsil Amb, Distt. Una, (H.P.) … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): The petitioner who was working as Lecturer Economics (School Cadre) on contract basis since 6.10.1998, has filed the present petition claiming the following reliefs:- “ i) That a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or directions quashing the Annexure P-9 dated 01.7.2010 may kindly be passed and further directing the Respondents to re-instate the Petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. ii) That writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioner from due date i.e. 27.7.2010 on the 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 completion of 8 years service with all consequential benefits when the services of all the similarly situated incumbents have been regularized. iii) That a writ in the nature of Mandmaus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to pay the arrears consequent upon the regularization of the services of the Petitioner.” 2. The petitioner has alleged in the petition that before his case for regularization could be considered, he was arrested in a case under Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 34 I.P.C. and it appears that the respondents had not considered the case of the petitioner for regularization after completion of eight years service as per the policy framed in the year 2010. The case against the petitioner has not so far been concluded and meanwhile, the petitioner’s services were terminated vide Annexure P-9 dated 1.7.2010. The petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed by him at this stage till the conclusion of the trial as against him, in which he was involved. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage for setting aside the termination order or for regularization of the services of the petitioner on completion of eight years service. The respondents are to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization or for reinstatement as per law and rules after the case as against him is concluded. 3. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. December 19, 2011 ( V.K. Ahuja ), (BSS) Judge