CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12482 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 28 ,2011 Saroj Bala and others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Naveen Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Since common question of law and facts arises in Civil Writ Petition Nos.12482, 12747 of 2010 and 9323 of 2011, the same are being disposed of by this common order. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12482 OF 2010 The petitioners were appointed on contractual basis for a period of one year by Civil Surgeon, Mewat. Their contract period is over and the contract has been discontinued, though earlier it was renewed. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12482 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: The petitioners claim that ever since the date of their appointment, they have been discharging their duties with sincerity and dedication. As per the petitioners, there is still shortage of paramedical staff in District Mewat and it would not be possible to implement various health programmes in the District if the petitioners are relieved. Finding that respondent No.3 has advertised various posts in District Mewat Health and Family Welfare Society and 26 posts of MPHW (F) have also been advertised, the petitioners have approached this Court with a grievance that one contractual employee can not be replaced by another, unless some better arrangements are made for appointing persons on regular basis. In this regard reference is made to law laid down by this Court. In response to notice, the respondents have filed reply. By way of preliminary submission, it is stated that the posts are purely temporary under Reproduction Child Health Scheme. Making reference to the terms of the contract, it is stated that the contract could be terminated at any time and this service would not be counted as a regular service. The Scheme is also stated to be temporary. Reference is then made to the appointment order, where dispute, if any, was required to be decided by the Arbitrator appointed by Civil Surgeon, Mewat, whose decision would be final and binding. It is accordingly prayed that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. In addition, the respondents also pleads that on scrutiny of the documents relating to qualifications of the petitioners, it is found that they do not possess the requisite qualification for the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12482 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: posts. The diploma possessed by the petitioners is not registered with the Haryana Nursing Council. Even the work and conduct of the petitioners was also not found to be satisfactory and in this background a fresh arrangement has been made on contractual basis by dispensing with the services of the petitioners. The petitioners have not joined issue in regard to the averments so made in the reply. If the work and conduct of the petitioners is not found to be satisfactory, then they can not insist on continuing their contract. If the grievance of the petitioners is that the contract has been wrongly terminated, then they have an alternative remedy of either approaching Arbitrator or can seek damages. However, the contract of service can not be enforced on the respondents. There is no merit in the writ petition. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NOS.12747 OF 2010 & 9323 OF 2011 In these two writ petitions, the petitioners were appointed on Class IV posts and on the posts of Pharmacists on contractual basis. The petitioners claim that they were appointed after following due process. It is again pleaded that the services were needed and when the posts are again advertised, they have approached this Court. In Civil Writ Petition No.12747 of 2010, the response of the State is slightly different. As per reply, the petitioners were engaged through a contractor/registered agencies by the names M/s Sharma Associate, Shop No.3, Shiv Mandir Complex, Sector 30-B, Chandigarh and M/s Shri Shyam Enterprises, Shop No.116-A, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12482 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: Dawarka Complex, Sector 16, Faridabad. Their appointments were for varying periods and after completion of the contract, no further contractor was selected/appointed by the Department due to non- availability of funds and hence, the petitioners were relieved on completion of contract on 12.5.2010. Though no reply was filed in Civil Writ Petition No.9323 of 2011, but copy of the same is handed over in the Court, which is taken on record. The stand reflected in the said reply is the same that the petitioners were engaged through contractor and accordingly have been relieved on completion of their contract period. It is accordingly pleaded that the writ petitions be dismissed. Counsel for the petitioners, however, orally submits that subsequently some fresh appointments have been made but no material in this regard is placed on record. There is no reason to doubt the stand taken by the respondents before the Court. In case, this stand is misleading in any manner, the petitioners can take any appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. No case for interference, thus, is made out. All the three writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. July 28, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE