1 2025:HHC:43062 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LP A No.16 of 2022 Decided on: 09.12.2025 Shanta Devi ......Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. Surender Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate, for respondent No.4. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The consideration is sought in the present appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No.1972 of 2019 titled Shanta Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 24.11.2021, by the unsuccessful writ petitioner. 2. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant was appointed on contractual basis on 19.02.2016 and 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:43062 therefore the justification of the State as such was that her services were disengaged on account of the fact that the contract was not extended as she was appointed for a specific project i.e. Rashtriya Varishath Madhymik Shiksha Abhiyan. The State Government had sanctioned only one post of Assistant Cook for the hostel in question and therefore they had no other option but to disengage her services, being younger in age to Smt. Murto Devi who was also appointed as an Assistant Cook on the same day, which highlights the reason why the appellant’s services were dispensed with whereas Smt. Murto Devi continued. 3. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the appellant is higher in merit as per the selection chart prepared by the respondents themselves at the time of recruitment and therefore the action of the State in dispensing with her services is arbitrary. It is contended that Smt. Murto Devi should have been disengaged instead and thus interference is sought with a prayer for the appeal to be allowed. 4. Firstly, it is to be seen that in the writ petition filed, Smt. Murto Devi was neither arrayed as a private respondent 3 2025:HHC:43062 nor was any relief claimed against her, and the only prayer as such was to allow the petitioner to discharge the duties as Assistant Cook in respondent No.3-School and renew the contract. No plea based on comparative merit and for quashing the appointment of the private respondent was made, which is now sought to be raised in the present appeal. 5. The official respondents in their reply have taken the plea that Smt. Murto Devi is older in age and that was the reason for retaining her. 6. We have also gone through the chart showing the award of marks and the age details. The appellant was born in 1981, whereas Smt. Murto Devi, now arrayed as respondent in the present appeal, was born in 1976, and therefore there is a five-year age difference between the two. 7. In such circumstances, even the argument on issue of merit as such cannot be taken into account as justifiable reasons have been given by the respondents. The fact remains that the appointment was purely on contract basis and never conferred any right for further continuance and the service could be dispensed with, without assigning 4 2025:HHC:43062 any reason or notice. The terms of the appointment order as such has been duly reproduced by the learned Single Judge. 8. In such circumstances, there being no vested right of the appellant, who had accepted an appointment purely on contract basis, she now cannot claim that she should be allowed to continue merely because she had secured higher merit in the recruitment process. The appointment being contractual, and the respondents having shown justifiable reason to dispense with her services on account of the post not being sanctioned by the State, we do not find any plausible reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, especially keeping in view the fact that the service period was only for three years. 9. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the present appeal, therefore the present appeal stands disposed of. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 09 th December , 2025 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) (ankit) Judge