CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18925 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 10,2010 Narender Kumar and others .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. C. M. Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have approached the Court with a prayer that the respondents be directed to make a regular selection to the posts of Instructors of various trades as per the Rules and to not to make any appointment on contract/adhoc basis. The grievance of the petitioners is that Haryana Government has framed the policy of making appointment by out sourcing and engaging persons on contract basis. As per the petitioners, Director of Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana, has issued no objection certificate for filling up the posts of Instructors in various Industrial Training Institutes on contract basis. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18925 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: As per the petitioners, posts of Instructors in various trades were lying vacant and instead of making regular selection, the Director has allowed the same to be filled on contract basis. The petitioners seek mandamus for the State to make regular appointments. At the outset, the counsel was required to show whether the mandamus could be issued for the prayer made in the writ petition. What all the counsel could do was to place before this Court the judgment in the case of Rattanlal and others etc.etc., Vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 478. This was a case where appointments of Teachers were made on adhoc basis at the commencement of the year and their services were terminated before summer vacation. This policy of termination was held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This was basically a case of making appointment at the commencement of the year and terminating the same at the time of summer vacation, followed by their appointment, at the commencement of next academic session. It was in these peculiar facts that observations were made for making appointment on regular basis, as the Teachers had continued to work on adhoc basis. Similar is the ratio in Karnataka State Private College Stop-Gap Lecturers Association Vs. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 677. Whether the Court can interfere in the policy formulated by the Government to outsource the appointment on some of the posts would be a question requiring consideration in the present case? The Government may not decide to fill the posts on regular basis and may decide to make appointments on contract basis. That CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18925 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: issue is basically of a policy decision and there is hardly any scope for interference in the policy so formulated by the Government. Relief under Article 226 generally may not be available to interfere with the matters of Government policy, unless it is demonstrably arbitrary, capricious, irrational, discriminatory or violative of Constitutional or statutory provisions. (See Bihar State Electricity Board Vs. Usha Martin Industries, (1997) 5 SCC 289, Govt. of A.P. Vs. M.Srinivasa Reddy, (1998) 8 SCC 765 and Krishnan Kakkanth Vs. Government of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 592. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. December 10, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE