IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.14175 of 2007 Date of decision: August 12, 2008 Nahar Singh and another -----Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. JS Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Addl.A.G.Haryana for the State. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. This petition seeks a direction to allow the petitioners to continue as Fire Brigade Vehicle Drivers till appointment of regular incumbents. Case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Fire Brigade Vehicle Drivers on 8.6.2005 on 89 days basis. The said contract was continued from time to time but after 26.4.2007, no further extension has been given. The respondents proposed to replace the petitioners with other set of employees on contract basis. CWP No.14175 of 2007 In the reply filed, stand of respondent No.4 is that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis and the contract having come to an end, non-renewal of the contract was not violative of any right of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a judgment of this Court in Manjit Singh and others v. Central Administrative Tribunal and others, 2007(3) SCT 155, taking the view that a contractual appointee has to make way for a regular appointee. In so observing, it was also observed that there was no dispute with the proposition that contractual employees could not be replaced by another set of contractual employees. We are unable to accept the submission that in judgment of this Court in Manjit Singh (supra), it has been held that a contractual employee had a right to renewal of contract of service. The petitioners have not been replaced by another set of contractual employees. The issue in the judgment relied upon was whether the contractual employee could continue after regular selection, which is not the issue for consideration in the present case. Observations made in that context cannot be held to be laying down a law that in absence of regular employees being selected, the petitioners had a right to continue in service inspite of non- renewal of contract. He also referred to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (2006) 4 SCC 1, that in absence of 2 CWP No.14175 of 2007 appointment having been made in accordance with the rules and regulations, the employees do not acquire any status and a direction to allow the petitioners to continue in service till regular employees were appointed, will amount to conferring a right on the petitioners to continue in service, which will be contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In view of above, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge August 12, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) ‘gs’ Judge 3