IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.14127 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: January 29, 2009 Sukhbir Singh etc. ... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana etc. ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral) The decision of this writ petition will also decide the CWP No.16590 of 2008. In this writ petition, the petitioners were originally appointed on contract basis on various posts. They had earlier filed petitions when they apprehended their termination to accommodate similar contractual employees. This Court had protected their service and had directed that the petitioners will be allowed to continue till such time persons selected on regular basis joined their duty. Thereafter the impugned advertisement dated 12.08.2008 was issued inviting applications for the posts hold by the petitioners. However, in the advertisement it was mentioned that the posts are temporary. During arguments before this Court today, the CWP No.14127 of 2008 -2- controversy has considered been narrowed down. In the written statement the stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the word 'temporary' used in the advertisement was not true indicator of the posts and if the advertisement was read as a whole it was intended that the posts be filled up on regular basis. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that word 'temporary' used in the advertisement resulted in a situation where some of the petitioners came under the apprehension that the posts were temporary and they did not apply for the same. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners would be satisfied if those of them who had not applied be now permitted to apply for the said posts. The only fly in the ointment is that if it is held that some petitioners were misled by the advertisement then it can be equally said that there are other persons who are similarly misled and so did not apply. Faced with this argument, learned State counsel directed the representative Mr. Pawan Kumar, Assistant to take instructions in this matter from the institute. Mr. Pawan Kumar, Assistant has sought instructions from Dr. S.S. Sangwan, Director, Pt. B.D. Sharma P.G.I.M.S., Rohtak who has instructed him that the institute would have no objection in issuing a corrigendum within two weeks whereby the posts would be classified as 'temporary but likely to be continue', three weeks CWP No.14127 of 2008 -3- further time would be granted to all interested persons to make their applications and thereafter the institute shall consider all such applicants along with earlier applicants who have applied for the posts. Needless to say, the petitioners will not be displaced till such selections are made. With these observations, these writ petitions are disposed of. January 29, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE