IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.13487 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 01, 2009 Amrik Singh and others .....PETITIONERS Versus The State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Deepak Sohal, Advocate, for Mr.Vijay K. Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioners have been engaged through labour contractor to work in the office of Fire Brigade Centre and Haryana Fire & Emergency Services, Jagadhri as Driver and Firemen, respectively. Some of the petitioners are alleged to have been working since 2003-04 and others are working since 2007-08. In this petition, the petitioners are making two-fold prayer. Firstly, that the respondents be directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services; and secondly Advertisement No.3 of 2008 dated 7.6.2008 (Annexure P-12) issued by respondent No.3 for making regular recruitment on the posts of Drivers and Firemen be quashed. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners. During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioners could not point out any policy or guidelines issued by the State Government under which the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services C.W.P. No.13487 of 2009 -2- can be considered. The petitioners are the employees of the labour contractor and are working since 2003/04 and 2007-08, respectively, and there is no such policy under which their services can be regularized. As far as quashing of the impugned Advertisement is concerned, counsel for the petitioners could not point out any ground on the basis of which the said Advertisement can be quashed. Since the regular vacancies are lying vacant, therefore, the respondents have rightly issued the advertisement for filling- up those vacancies by direct recruitment. During the course of arguments, it has been stated that the petitioners have already applied against those vacancies and if they are found eligible, their claim is liable to be considered. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioners have failed to make out a case for quashing of the impugned Advertisement. Dismissed. September 01, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE