CWP No.2599 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2599 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 23-03-2011 Vinika ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. R.N.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner was appointed as a Guest Teacher in the stream of science. She belongs to the Jind District and was appointed in District Sonepat. A complaint was initiated by respondent no.6 that the appointment is contrary to the rules. The matter was inquired into and it was found that the petitioner was appointed in District Sonepat despite the fact that there were other candidates available belonging to the same block. This was in pursuance to the policy of Government to appoint Guest Teacher by giving preference to the candidates who belong to the same village and in the eventuality of they being not available, resort to finding available candidates from the block and if the candidates are not available in the block then from the candidates belonging to the District. The District Education Officer who conducted the inquiry also found as a matter of fact that the petitioner had not been attending to her duties and that the children of the school even did not know that they had such teacher. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that appointment CWP No.2599 of 2010 (O&M) 2 of the petitioner was in accordance with policy and the complaint has been initiated due to political reasons. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that in view of the inquiry and in view of the infirmity committed in the appointment, the services of the petitioner have been rightly dispensed with. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner was merely a Guest Teacher. Even if it is accepted that the petitioner was appointed in accordance with the policy yet if the respondents are not satisfied with the work of the petitioner, her services can be terminated being entirely contractual in nature. The facts reveal that Education Officer conducted inquiry and found that she was not attending to her duties implying thereby that respondents are not satisfied with the work and conduct of the petitioner. They are thus very well within their rights to dispense with the services of the petitioner which are purely contractual on their being dis-satisfied with her work and conduct. Hence, the instant petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. However, this inquiry shall not be held against the petitioner for future employment. March 23, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge