IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 9774 of 2008. Decided on: 17 th December, 2010. Desh Raj. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No ________________________________________________________ __ For the petitioner. : None. For respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for the respondents. Respondent No. 3 already exparte. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : Petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant in Gram Panchayat Bheal and Ree on 31.05.2002 up to 31.05.2003. It was renewed on 01.06.2003. In the meantime, an enquiry was got conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur from the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur, on the basis of a complaint filed by one Shri Man Singh. The statements of petitioner, S/Shri Man Singh, J.S.Kashyap, Contractor and Gurpinder Singh were recorded. It transpired during the course of hearing that petitioner has submitted a fake certificate of experience. In fact, the petitioner was working in Shakti Public School Behal at the relevant time when he claimed that he was also working under Shri J.S. Kashyap, Contractor. Shri J.S. Kashyap has stated in his statement that petitioner was working as 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No Supervisor, however, in his certificate, he has mentioned that he has worked as Draughtsman. Petitioner’s explanation was called for after the enquiry was conducted. The employer, after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, including that the petitioner has furnished a false experience certificate, terminated his services vide letter dated 11.09.2003 (Annexure A-5). Petitioner has also sought directions to the respondents to renew his contract. This Court cannot direct the respondents to enter into fresh agreement with the petitioner. 2. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 17, 2010. (bhupender)