JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Complaint is that the services of the petitioner, who was working as a Chowkidar for watch and ward of bus stand, Killar in District Chamba from his initial engagement on contract basis in the year 2001, have been orally dispensed with without assigning any reason. Hence, the present writ petition with the following prayers:- “i) That the oral order of termination passed by the respondent No.2 may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondent 2 be directed to allow the petitioner to join the duties. ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to execute the contract with the petitioner. iii) That the emoluments for the period when the petitioners were not allowed to perform their duties by the respondent No.2 may kindly be ordered to be paid in accordance with law. iv) That the respondent be directed to produce the contract executed with the respondent 3 and same may be quashed and set aside being illegal and null and void.” 2. Precisely, it is the case of the petitioner that he was engaged as Chowkidar in the year 2001 on daily wage basis @ `75/- per day. The contract was to be renewed from time to time. However, the respondent-Corporation failed to renew the same after 2009 and to the contrary, engaged one Shri Parveen Kumar, though impleaded in the writ petition as respondent No.3, however, subsequently deleted. 3. In the re ply, the respondent -Corporation has denied the case as set-up by the petitioner in the writ petition and submitted as under:- “Para 2: That in reply to the contents of Para 2 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the petitioner was never appointed by the replying respondents. However, it is submitted that the work of cleaning/removing of snow, watch & ward of Bus-stand and parked at bus stand Killar was awarded to the petitioner w.e.f. 15.12.2001 to 15.4.2002 at a lump-sum rate of Rs.4000/-. Similarly, during the period from March, 2003 to October, 2003, the work of sweeping of workshop premises was allotted to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.900/-on piece meal basis. Subsequently, during the winter seasons, the work of sweeping and removing of snow from workshop was allotted to the petitioner w.e.f. 7.11.2003 to 26.5.2004 on lump-sum basis of Rs.12,000/-. Similarly, during the period from March, 2003 to October, 2003, the work of sweeping of workshop premises was allotted to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.900/-on piece meal basis. Subsequently, during the winter seasons, the work of sweeping and removing of snow from workshop was allotted to the petitioner w.e.f. 7.11.2003 to 26.5.2004 on lump-sum basis of Rs.12,000/-. After completion of booking office building, same was allotted to the petitioner w.e.f. 27.5.2004 to August, 2004 for cleanliness and removing snow and watch and ward on oral understanding between the parties. The work of cleaning and removing of snow and watch and ward during the winter was again given to the petitioner at a rate of Rs.2000/- per month w.e.f. 1.11.2004 to 30.9.2005, for which, an agreement was entered between the parties. The copy is annexed as Annexure R-1. The replying respondents with a view to make the working more transparent adopted the policy of inviting quotations from public at large. Accordingly, three parties have given their quotations for the period commencing from 1.8.2005 to 30.6.2006. The rates offered by the petitioner were lowest and accordingly, the work was allotted to the petitioner. After expiry of the above period, again the work was allotted to the petitioner on his verbal request w.e.f. 1.7.2006 to 31.5.2007 and 2.6.2007 to 1.5.2008 as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement. The copy is annexed herewith as Annexure R-2.Thereafter, w.e.f. 15.2.2008 when the earlier agreement was about to expire, fresh quotations were invited and the rate offered by the parties were found on higher side, accordingly, the competent authority decided to cancel the same and fresh quotation for the same purpose was invited. As per the fresh quotations, the rate offered by one Om Parkash was lowest and accordingly, the work was allotted to him. The said Om Parkash left the work after expiry of a period of one month. The petitioner being second in offering the lowest rate was awarded the work. The period expired on 19.5.2009. Thereafter, fresh quotations were invited for a further period of 11 months. The rates offered by the Respondent No.3 were lowest and accordingly, the work was allotted to Respondent No.3.” 4. In rejoinder, the petitioner, however, reiterated 5. During the course of arguments on the previous his case as he set-out in the writ petition. The period expired on 19.5.2009. Thereafter, fresh quotations were invited for a further period of 11 months. The rates offered by the Respondent No.3 were lowest and accordingly, the work was allotted to Respondent No.3.” 4. In rejoinder, the petitioner, however, reiterated 5. During the course of arguments on the previous his case as he set-out in the writ petition. date, the necessity of production of records was felt and the respondent-Corporation was directed to produce the same . Learned standing counsel has made avail able the original records, which has been perused not only by the Court, but learned counsel for the petitioner has also been allowed to peruse the same. There hardly remains any dispute from the perusal of records qua the contractual engagement of the petitioner as Chowkidar-cum-Ward and Watchmen purely on acceptance of quotations, he submitted from time to time and acceptance of the rates he quoted, being lowest. There is thus no substance in the case as set forth that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis @ `75/-per day or on contractual basis and rather he has been awarded the work of watch and ward of bus-stand from time to time on the basis of the lowest rates, he quoted. 6. He continued to be engaged on this work till the year 2009. In the year 2009 quotations were again invited and Shri Parveen Kumar, aforesaid having quoted the lowest rates, was awarded this work. He, however, seems to have left the same. Thereafter, fresh quotations were invited. The rates as `2000/- per month quoted therein by the petitioner were found to be lowest. Regional Manager, H.R.T.C., Keylong instead of allotment of the work to the petitioner sought clarification from the head office of respondent-Corporation vide letter dated 23rd April, 2010 as to whether in view of the petitioner having filed writ petition in this Court, has to be awarded the work or not. In response thereto vide letter dated 5th May, 2010, the 2nd respondent was directed to award the work of watch and ward at Killar bus-stand for 11 months to the petitioner subject to the condition that he will withdraw the pending Court case (the present writ petition). In response thereto vide letter dated 5th May, 2010, the 2nd respondent was directed to award the work of watch and ward at Killar bus-stand for 11 months to the petitioner subject to the condition that he will withdraw the pending Court case (the present writ petition). No offer seems to be given to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent in terms of the direction of the head office of respondent-Corporation and to the contrary, one Shri Banka Ram was awarded this work by the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 1.12.2010 at higher rates, i.e. `2500/- per month. It is said Shri Banka Ram who is still continuing as his contract seems to be further renewed. Although in this writ petition the simple case of the petitioner is that his services have been dispensed with orally, which action on the part of the respondent-Corporation has been sought to be set aside with a further direction to the respondents to execute the contract with him and also to pay the arrears for the period for which he was not allowed to perform his duty. No such relief, in view of the position explained above is legally permissible nor can be granted. The respondent-Corporation, however, should have awarded the work to the petitioner in the year 2010 on the basis of lowest rates he quoted for that work. No unreasonable condition that the work be awarded to him subject to withdrawing the writ petition should have been imposed. It is significant to note that even such conditional approval granted by the 1st respondent has also not been implemented as no offer was given to the petitioner. Any how, there has been no case in that respect, set out in this petition nor Shri Banka Ram is before this Court. Therefore, this Court refrains itself from making any observation qua this and leave it open to the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider the same in case the petitioner prefers a representation. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to take a conscious decision after hearing the petitioner also, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation, if any, made by him. 7. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of finally. Pending application(s), if any, also shall stand disposed of. There is no order as to costs.