Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bhopal And Others v. Accordingly, The Petition Stands Dismissed

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH. CM No. 5517 of JO16 InCM No. 5009-CWP? of 2016 ICWP No. 5917 of 2016|Date of Decision : 09.05.7016. Daljeet Singn .. petitioner /$.&0& Life Insurance Corporation of India and others| ...respondents CORAM:FON BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI 1)|Whether Reporters of the local papers may beallowed to see the judgment?allowed to see the judgment? 2)|To be referred to the Reporters or not? J)Whether the judgment should be reported in theDigest?Digest? Present:Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocatefor the applicant-respondents.for the applicant-respondents. Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the non-applicant/petitioner, ??? P.B. Bajanthri, {.(Oral) CM No. 5517 of ZO16 Application Is allowed, as prayed for. Reply to the application for vacation of interim order Is taken on record. CM No. 5009CWP of JZOI The instant application has been filed by the applicant-respondents for vacation of interim order dated 04.04.2016. Replyof the application has been filed by the learned counsel for thepetitioner. An identical matter was decided in CWP No. 67/754 2016, on 29.04.2016 by this Court. Therefore, question of| CM No. 5517 of ZOLO InCM No. 5009-CWP of 2016 InCWP No. 5917 of 2016 -)- considering vacation of interim order as well as consideration ofreply Tiled py tne petitioner to the application for vacation of interimoraer need not arise.. In the present petition as well as CWP No. 6754 of 2016,matter pertains to extension of contract appointment. Tenure of thepetitioners as contract appointment was over, therefore, question ofconsidering extension or contract appointment by this Court Isimpermissible in the absence of any legal rignt. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies uponChief Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal and others Vs. Ms Leena Jainand others,2006(11) SCC 350. The Issue involved in the aforesaidcase is relating to regularization of services. Further petitionercounsel relied onState of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi,2006(4) SCC 1.This judgment is not applicable in respect of contract appointment,where term of appointment is fixed and it has ended. In theabsence of any legal right, the petitioner is not entitled to any reliefana this Court cannot give any writ of mandamus or direction to therespondents. The petitioner nas not make out the case, so as tointerfere witn the matter. lIadentical issue nas peen daecidaed in No. 6/54 of 2016 dated 29.04.2016. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. No order asto costs. May O09, 2016Kanchen (P.B. BAJANTHRI)JUDGE|