IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No.7756 of 2008 Decided on: July 21, 2011 Maya Devi ..Petitioner. Versus State of HP & others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Vijay Vir Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner, vide letter Annexure P-4, was appointed as Tailoring Teacher on contract basis for one year, in Gram Panchayat Gharan in Bilaspur District, in the year 1998. Appointment of the petitioner took place after a Committee of the Panchayat held interviews and selected her, from amongst various candidates. It appears that contract was extended by another year. 3. In the year 2000, Panchayat again started the process of selection of Tailoring Teacher and selected Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É respondent No.3 Smt. Sheela Devi for appointment as Tailoring Teacher, on contract basis, against the post to which petitioner had earlier been appointed. Respondent No.3 was then appointed on contract basis on the basis of that selection process and, thus, she replaced the petitioner. 4. Immediately, after being replaced by respondent No.3, petitioner filed Original application before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. Matter remained pending before the Tribunal till 2008, when the Tribunal was abolished. On abolition of Tribunal, matter came to this Court. 5. Respondents No.1 and 2, in their reply, have stated that petitioner’s appointment was only for one year, on contract basis and that on the expiry of her contract period, fresh selection process was initiated and respondent No.3 was appointed. According to respondents No.1 and 2, respondent No.3 was found to be more deserving candidate compared to the petitioner, because nobody from her (respondent No.3’s) family was in government service, whereas in the case of petitioner her husband was employed as a teacher. 6. It is by now well settled that though the appointments made on contract basis are for a fixed period and on the expiry of such period contract lapses, yet there É3É are so many judicial precedents that a person appointed on contract basis cannot be replaced by another person, also appointed on contract basis, unless, of course, the first person is found to be unsuitable for the post, on account of some act of misconduct etc., which is not the case here. Person appointed on contract basis can be replaced only by a regularly appointed employee. When the petitioner had been working on contract basis and no fault was found with her working, her appointment on contract basis ought to have been continued, until a regular employee was appointed against the post. Her replacement by respondent No.3, who too had been appointed on contract basis, is thus illegal. 7. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is allowed, appointment of respondent No.3 is quashed and petitioner is ordered to be reappointed on contract basis, in case the post is still continuing and is held by a persons appointed on contract basis. Disposed of. July 21, 2011(ss) (Surjit Singh), J.