2025:UHC:3425-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceeding s or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSB 656/2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. None appears for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Bora, Standing Counsel, for the State. Mr. Vivek Kumar, Advocate, i/b Mr. Anil Anthwal, Advocate for the respondent no. 5. (2) Petitioner was appointed as Professor and Head of Department (Anesthesiology) in Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Government Medical Science & Research Institute, Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal, vide order dated 16.1.2009. By the said order, petitioner was appointed on contract for a term of two years, which was extended from time to time till 10.9.2018. Thereafter contractual appointment of petitioner was not extended any further. Petitioner filed Writ Petition (S/B) No. 429 of 2018, which was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to take decision on petitioner’s representation within six weeks. Pursuant to direction issued by this Court, Secretary, Medical Education considered and rejected petitioner’s request for extension of her contractual appointment. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the rejection order dated 1.11.2018. 2025:UHC:3425-DB (3) In the impugned rejection order, it is mentioned that government had decided to make fresh appointment through walk-in interview and advertisement was issued on 13.9.2018 and thereafter walk-in interview was held on 4.10.2018, however, petitioner did not participate in walk-in interview and the candidate recommended in such interview was appointed as Professor and Head of Department (Anesthesiology). Thus the Secretary, in the rejection order, observed that in view of the appointment subsequently made in the selection held in 2018, it is not possible to extend the contractual appointment of the petitioner. (4) This Court concur with the reasoning given by the Secretary for deciding her representation against her. Petitioner herself is to be blamed for not participating in the selection. The status of petitioner was that of a contract employee, therefore she had no lien on the post. The term of her contractual appointment came to an end on 11.9.2018, therefore the decision taken by the State Government to hold fresh selection for the post, in question, cannot be faulted. Thus there is no scope for interference. Writ petition thus fails and is dismissed. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 05.05.2025 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e6 1af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB5 88052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.05.06 17:57:05 +05'30' 2025:UHC:3425-DB