Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.

The case in hand is a glaring example of misuse of process of law and demonstrates to what extent a disgruntled litigant can succeed in abusing the process of Court and misusing the majesty of law to the total disadvantage and detriment to his opponent and the judicial system.

2. In order to set the controversy at rest, it is necessary to give a brief narration of the conspectus of relevant facts, which has given birth to the instant writ petition.

3. Petitioner, in terms of advertisement notice, Annexure P6, came to be appointed as District Child Protection Officer (DCPO) in District Shimla vide appointment letter dated 17.2.2014, Annexure P4, under the “Centrally Sponsored”, “Integrated Child Protection Scheme” on contract basis for a period of one year on the basis of Selection and Appointment Process Annexure P2. Vide Annexure P7, he joined as such on 19.2.2014. His tenure was extended vide Annexure P3 from 19.5.2015 to 18.11.2015. He made representation for further extension on the analogy of similarly situated District Child Protection officers (DCPOs), as mentioned in Annexure P1, vide representation Annexure P5 but vide Annexure P8, his request was not acceded to.

4. Feeling aggrieved, on 16.11.2015, the petitioner filed Original Application No. 4331 of 2015, before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, seeking mainly the following reliefs.

“A). Respondents may kindly be directed to extend the further tenure of the petitioner as state-respondents already extended further tenure of all the DCPO’s in another districts as in Annexure A/1 on the same ground District Child Protection Officer (DCPO) district Shimla on contractual basis is also entitled for further extension as per the guidelines of “Centrally Sponsored” integrated Child Protection Scheme (ICPS), i.e. every personnel shall have a contract of 3 years, extendable by 2 years on the basis of performance appraisal reports. There is violation of the principle of natural justice as well as ignoring the guidelines of the “Centrally Sponsored” integrated Child Protection Scheme (ICPS) on the basis of grant/fund issued by the government of India in the ratio of 90:10.The document of selection and appointment process of district Child Protection Officer (DCPO) is annexed in Annexure A/2 for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

B) Respondents may kindly be directed that not to terminate the services of the petitioner as a District Child Protection Officer (DCPO) on contractual basis which is “Centrally Sponsored” integrated Child Protection Scheme (ICPS) on the basis of grant/fund issued by the government of India. Which is arbitrary, discriminatory and violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

(E) Directing the respondents not to dispense with the services of the petitioner as a District Child Protection Officer (DCPO) on contractual basis by way of transfer or by any mode of fresh appointment through a deputation or any other mode of contract Appointment in the interest of justice and fair play till the decision of this case.”

5. Along with the Original Application, an application for interim direction was filed but no relief came to be granted in favour of the petitioner and respondents were only directed to consider the case of the applicant to work as Child Protection Officer, vide order dated 19.11.2015. In the meantime, respondent No.2 vide order dated 26.11.20115, Annexure P10, rejected the case of the petitioner for further extension.

6. The petitioner filed COPC before the Tribunal, which was ordered to be listed alongwith Original Application vide order dated 3.12.2015 Annexure P15. Vide order dated 9.12.2015, Annexure P16, the petitioner was allowed by the Tribunal to amend the Original application.

7. The petitioner made another attempt to get orders from the Court by filing CMPMO No. 23/2016 before this Court, during the pendency of the Original Application, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.1.201