IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.5846 of 2011 Date of decision : 1.4.2011 Mrs. Jyoti Saini and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Ms.Sangita Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are working as contractual employees and are threatened with termination of their services every time after the expiry of their tenure. The initial appointment of the petitioners was on the condition that their engagement is purely temporary and likely to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason and without any compensation. It was also a stipulation that the engagement is for a period not exceeding six months or till a regular appointee or incumbent selected by the department. Both the conditions if read together clearly make out a case that the services of the petitioners were temporary and likely to be terminated at any time and the arrangement was for a period of six months or till a regular appointee C.W.P.No.5846 of 2011 -2- is selected by the respondents. Merely because an advertisement has been issued for filling up the posts does not imply that the services of the petitioners are being dispensed with. The respondents are well within their right to carry out the advertisement to explore the possibility of filling up the posts afresh, but certainly the grievance of the petitioners would be justified if their services are replaced by contractual employees instead of regular appointments. At the moment no such apprehension is visible. Therefore, no interference is warranted at this stage. Dismissed. 1.4.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss