IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.4850 of 2010 Date of Decision: 14.3.2011 Mr.Nirmala Devi …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner(s): Sh.J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Sh.Vivek Thakur, Addl.A.G.. for respondents No.1 to 3. Sh.Neel Kamal Sharma, counsel for R-4. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. The petition is directed against the order dated 10th August, 2010 whereby the petitioner has been informed that her services are no longer required in the Industrial Training Institute, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner on the basis of walk-in-interview was appointed as trainer (Cutting & Sewing Trade) at fixed remuneration, on contract basis, by respondent No.3, Institute Management Committee, which is a Society and is managing the I.T.I. The petitioner worked as such on contract basis from time to time and continued for 2 almost 2 years. On 7th August, 2010 she was again offered appointment against the said post for a period of one year from 9th August, 2010 to 31st July, 2011. However, on 10th August, 2010 itself the petitioner was informed that her services are no longer required since respondent No.4 who had worked as contract teacher in ITI has been regularized on completion of 8 years service. 3. It is not the case of the petitioner that there is any vacant post still available in the ITI. Respondent No.4 has worked for more than 8 years on contract basis and was employed seven years earlier to the petitioner and has been regularized. Once this has been done, the second person has to go and there is no other alternative. 4. Sh.J.L. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the regular employee i.e. respondent No.4 was earlier posted somewhere else and now she has been posted at Kasauli. In my view, a contract teacher who has joined later can not have any grievance against the posting of a regular employee in an ITI. However, in case, there is any vacancy of Instructor in the trade to which the petitioner belongs, the petitioner 3 shall be employed against the said vacancy. In case, the petitioner joins the said post, it is fine and in case the petitioner does not join her name will not be considered under these directions. 5. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. March 14, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) PV Judge.