JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. - By way of instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- "(i) That the respondents may be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioners appointment and cancellation thereof. (ii) That annexure P-1 may be quashed and set aside.'" 2. Petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the passing of order dated 14.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation (in short, 'Corporation'), whereby appeal having been filed by the petitioner has been rejected, has approached this Curt seeking reliefs as have been reproduced herein above. Facts as emerge from record and that the petitioner was appointed as Driver purely on contract basis on 11.4.1998, accordingly, he was deputed with Bus No. HP-25-0704. On 29.5.1998, petitioner was deputed to ply aforesaid bus on Solan-Oily route. However, on 30.5.1998, petitioner after starting bus on return journey from Oily to Solan, parked the same on Kachha portion and went away along with Conductor to take tea at nearby shop. Unfortunately, bus, all of a sudden, started rolling down in the absence of driver/conductor and fell into a 200 feet deep gorge, as a result of which, seven passengers sustained injuries. Taking cognizance of the aforesaid incident, Regional Manager, HRTC Solan, while invoking powers vested in him under Clause 4 (iii) of the contract, vide order dated 9.6.1998, terminated contract of the petitioner with immediate effect. Petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of termination issued by Regional Manager, HRTC, preferred an appeal before the Divisional Manager, HRTC, Shimla Division, Shimla-4, which was also rejected vide order dated 28.7.1998 (Annexure P-2 of CWP No. 6007 of 2010). Petitioner being further aggrieved by aforesaid orders dated 9.6.1998 and 28.7.1998, approached this Court by way of CWP No. 6007 of 2010, praying therein for quashing of aforesaid orders. Petitioner being further aggrieved by aforesaid orders dated 9.6.1998 and 28.7.1998, approached this Court by way of CWP No. 6007 of 2010, praying therein for quashing of aforesaid orders. Division Bench of this Court taking cognizance of the averments contained in the petition, came to conclusion that there is no consideration of appeal on merits and accordingly, disposed of the petition with a direction to the Divisional Manager to consider and pass an appropriate/speaking order on the appeal having been filed by petitioner against the order of termination of contract after affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of judgment dated 9.12.2010 rendered in CWP No. 6007 of 2010. Sequel to aforesaid direction, the Divisional Manager, HRTC passed fresh order dated 14.3.2011, whereby appeal preferred by the present petitioner has been rejected. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner approached this Court seeking quashment of order dated 14.3.2011 (Annexure P-1). 3. Mr. Nitin Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while referring to the impugned order annexure P-1, dated 14.3.2011, vehemently argued that by not stretch of imagination, it can be termed to be a speaking order and as such same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Thakur, while inviting attention of this Court to earlier judgment having been passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6007 of 2010, strenuously argued that the Divisional Manager ought to have afforded adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, while passing any order on his appeal. Perusal of impugned order dated 14.3.2011, clearly suggests that there is no application of mind by the Divisional Manager, rather it is a mere repetition of earlier order dated 28.7.1998, which was held to be void by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6007 of 2010. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Thakur forcefully contended that there is no discussion, if any, with regard to inquiry conducted by the authorities before coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was negligent in parking vehicle at the spot, from where it rolled down into 200 feet deep gorge. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Thakur, prayed that the petition may be allowed and petitioner be ordered to be reinstated in service. 4. Mr. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Thakur, prayed that the petition may be allowed and petitioner be ordered to be reinstated in service. 4. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent-Corporation supported the order passed by the Divisional Manager in appeal, by stating that the petitioner was afforded due opportunity of hearing, as was ordered by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 9.12.2010 passed in CWP No. 6007 of 2010. While refuting the contentions having been put forth on behalf of the learned counsel representing the petitioner, Mr. Sharma, invited attention of this Court to the impugned order, to demonstrate that impugned order dated 14.3.2011 was passed by Divisional Manager, HRTC, on the basis of report of Regional Manager, Solan, wherein he specifically concluded that the petitioner, who was driver of the ill-fated bus, after starting bus left the same in neutral gear on a steep gradient and went down to tea shop without placing stone/Gutka, under the tyre of the bus. Mr. Sharma, further contended that the services of petitioner were engaged purely on contract basis and same could be terminated by authorities at any time, as such, there is no force in the petition, and same deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. 6. Before proceeding to decide the controversy at hand, this Court especially called for record of CWP No. 6007 of 2010, whereby petitioner had laid challenge to order of termination of his contract dated 9.6.1998, and order dated 28.7.1998, whereby appeal of the petitioner was rejected. Annexure P-1 placed on record along with reply filed in CWP No. 6007 of 2010, clearly suggests that petitioner was appointed as driver for a period of one year on contractual basis from 6.4.1998 to 5.4.1999, hence, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner had no right to claim appointment, if any, in terms of aforesaid contract beyond 5.4.1999. This Court was unable to lay its hand on any document placed on record by either of the parties, suggestive of the fact that aforesaid contract was ever extended by the Corporation, meaning thereby that petitioner ceased to be on the rolls of the Corporation as a Driver after 5.4.1999. This Court was unable to lay its hand on any document placed on record by either of the parties, suggestive of the fact that aforesaid contract was ever extended by the Corporation, meaning thereby that petitioner ceased to be on the rolls of the Corporation as a Driver after 5.4.1999. Apart from above, impugned order dated 14.3.2011 passed by Divisional Manager, HRTC purportedly in compliance of judgment dated 9.12.2010 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6007 of 2010, clearly suggests that authority concerned, before passing order on appeal having been filed by petitioner, afforded due opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It clearly emerges from aforesaid order that the Divisional Manager, HRTC re-heard the appeal and decided the same on the basis of report submitted by Regional Manager, Solan, who, in his report, specifically stated that Fateh Singh (petitioner) ex-driver, was deputed with Bus No. HP-24-0704 to cater Solan-Oily route on 29.5.1998 but on 30.5.1998, Driver, checked water/oil etc. and started the bus in neutral gear on steep gradient and went down to the tea shop without placing stone/Gutka under the tyre of the bus, due to which Bus started moving on its own and fell down the road. Since it stands duly reflected in the aforesaid impugned order that same was passed after hearing the petitioner, this Court has reasons to presume that the version put forth by the petitioner was also taken into consideration by the authorities before coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was negligent while parking Bus on a steep gradient. 7. True it is, there is no mention of the version, if any, put forth by the petitioner at the time of disposal of appeal but, as has been noticed above, impugned order clearly reflects that at the time of passing of order, petitioner was present and as such it can be safely inferred that he was afforded opportunity of hearing. Moreover, petitioner has nowhere disputed that he was not called by the Divisional Manager before passing of impugned order, rather, petitioner has stated that there was no material, whatsoever before the authority concerned, which could compel it to conclude that petitioner was negligent in parking the vehicle. Moreover, petitioner has nowhere disputed that he was not called by the Divisional Manager before passing of impugned order, rather, petitioner has stated that there was no material, whatsoever before the authority concerned, which could compel it to conclude that petitioner was negligent in parking the vehicle. But aforesaid submission having been made by the petitioner does not appear to be correct on the face of record, which clearly suggests that impugned order was passed on the basis of report furnished by Regional Manager, who in no uncertain terms stated that the petitioner was negligent in parking vehicle in neutral gear that too on a steep gradient. 8. Hence, this Court sees no reason to differ with the findings returned by the Divisional Manager, HRTC while disposing of appeal of petitioner. Apart from above, contract of the petitioner was merely for one year, which has already come to an end and it is not in the ambit of this Court to direct the authorities concerned to renew the contract of the petitioner, because it is the sole domain of the authority concerned. 9. In view of above, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.