CWP No.18106 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 19.04.2010 (1) CWP No.18106 of 2009 Jasvinder and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents (2) CWP No.19634 of 2009 Hitesh Kumar and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Manoj Makkar, Advocate,for the petitioners. Mr. RS Kundu, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. State of Haryana advertised many posts of Instructors on contract basis for the Industrial Training Institutes for various districts. The petitioners applied for the above said posts being eligible. They executed service agreement for a period of six months with the respondents. The petitioners were given appointment as such and are continuing till date. Large number of posts of ITI Instructors are lying vacant. The respondents are appointing Instructors on ad hoc basis. The petitioners are also performing the same duties as are being performed by the ad hoc Instructors. CWP No.18106 of 2009 2 In the month of November, 2009, the respondents started pressurising the petitioners to leave the Institutions or to give resignation. Petitioners have an apprehension of being replaced by somebody else by the similar arrangement. Hence, these petitions. It is settled principle of law that a temporary arrangement cannot be replaced by a similar temporary arrangement. The respondents are, however, at liberty to make appointment on regular substantive basis by making appropriate advertisement in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. However, the respondents cannot be permitted to replace the petitioners to substitute them by similar contractual/temporary arrangements. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that the petitioners be not replaced by similar arrangements, except if their services are not needed or unsuitability. However, the respondents are at liberty to make appointment on regular substantive basis by following the appropriate procedure under law. In that eventuality, the petitioners would make way for regularly appointed employees. However, they would be at liberty to apply for the post, subject to their qualification and eligibility. A copy of this order be placed on the record of connected file. 19.04.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE