IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17065 OF 2010 DATE OF DECISION: September 22, 2010 Ms.Koshalya & others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. B.R.Vohra, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J The petitioners were engaged on contractual basis at D.C. Rates on the posts of Peon (Female), Laboratory Attendant, Library Attendant and Mali for a period of six months. The petitioners have been relieved on expiry of contract period on 25.8.2010. They have filed the present writ petition to challenge the action of the respondents in re-advertising the above posts for making appointment again on contractual basis for a period of six months. The petitioners have accordingly filed this writ petition to allege that this action of the respondents is illegal and contrary to settled principle of law that a temporary employee cannot be replaced by another temporary employee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 has CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17065 OF 2010 : 2 : considered in detail the appointment made in violation of rules and has also made some observations about the contractual employment. In regard to contractual employment, it is observed that such appointment comes to an end at the end of contract. If it is an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end, when it is discontinued. The Court has further observed that it is not open to the Courts to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees, whose period of employment has come to an end or adhoc employees, who by virtue of very nature of their appointment do not acquire any right. Rather as a word of caution for the High Courts, it is stated that while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Courts should not ordinary issue direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance, unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the Constitutional Scheme. The petitioners, thus, have no right to continue. They were contractual employees and the contract having come to an end, their services have rightly been discontinued. They cannot now prevent the State for going ahead with appointment. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. September 22 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE