CWP No.21847 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 8.12.2010 Pawan Kumar and others ...Petitioners VERSUS Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.PS Jammu, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.Sudhir Kumar, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate who is present in Court has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents. Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at motion stage itself. In response to advertisement, the petitioners have been engaged as Assistant Lineman/Shift Attendants, on contractual basis. Petitioners have an apprehension of being replaced by somebody else by the similar arrangement. It is settled principle of law that a temporary arrangement cannot be replaced by a similar temporary arrangement. The respondents are, CWP No.21847 of 2010 2 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. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 8.12. 2010 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 3