CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5703 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 Bhawna Grover and others .....Petitioners VERSUS The 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.Jagbir Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners were appointed as Extension Lecturers. Some of them have been relieved on 21.3.2011. As per the averments, the remaining are likely to be relieved as their appointment was for a limited period, though the job requirement still exists. They have accordingly approached this court to challenge this action by alleging that the same is illegal, arbitrary on the ground that they are being replaced by similarly set of Lecturers and with the same terms. It is pleaded that respondent-Government had taken a CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5703 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 2 }: decision to engage Extension Lecturers. They were selected by a duly constituted selection committee and are being paid on the basis of three lectures per day for 4 days in a week. Their engagement was upto 31.3.2011. It can be noticed that to cover up the problem of shortage of Lecturers in the various subjects, this permission was granted by the Higher Education Commissioner, Haryana to arrange Extension Lecturers. This was subject to certain directions, like Lecturers would be arranged only if it is absolutely necessary and in those subjects where less than 50% Lecturers are working against the work load. The persons invited were to be allowed to deliver lectures for maximum three periods per day for 4 days in a week, thus, ensuring not more than 50 lectures in a month. They were paid Rs.200/- per lecture as a remuneration and this was to be paid out of A.F. on loan basis, which was to be reimbursed later by the head office. The petitioners plead that they would be entitled to continue as no direct recruitment has been made and action of the respondents in replacing them is termed as arbitrary. Initially, no material was placed on record to show that there was any move to replace the petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners placed on record an advertisement issued in the Newspaper inviting from qualified resource persons to teach some subjects. The petitioners were then required to place on record the appointment letters of the persons, who were going to replace the petitioners. The petitioners had then moved an application for impleading respondent Nos.6 to 18, who were appointed as Extension Lectures in place of the petitioners, which, according to the petitioners was in violation of settled law that a contract employee CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5703 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 3 }: cannot be replaced by another contract employee. In support, the counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hargurpratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 618 (L&S) 618, where action to displace adhoc arrangement by another adhoc arrangement was held bad and directions were issued to the State to continue the adhoc employees in service till regular appointments were made. The nature of appointment of the petitioners, in my view, is neither adhoc nor contractual nor even temporary. The petitioners have just been invited to take lectures to tide over the shortage and they were not paid any regular salary or allowances. They have been paid daily on the basis of lectures delivered by them. The selection to extend invitation to persons, like the petitioners was not done by any selection committee, but a panel of 3-4 persons was made, who may be called to deliver lectures in rotation. This was purely an arrangement made for convenience and would not give any right to any of the petitioners to seek continuation in service or a right to seek invitation to visit the College and to deliver the lectures. If any decision has been taken to extend this invitation to some other persons, it would not give any right to the petitioners to seek preference for being continued as it is purely temporary arrangement which does not create any right in favour of the petitioners, which can be enforced through the writ petition. It is not even a case of contract, which can be enforced or approach made for seeking damages. It may need a passing reference here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent order passed in Civil Appeal No.1143 of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5703 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 4 }: 2005 titled State of Haryana & others Vs. Polu Ram and others has allowed the appeal, whereby this court had taken a view to direct that services be continued till regular arrangement. The respondents were held not entitled to continue on the post after the expiry of specified period as they were appointed on fixed terms on a stopgap arrangement. This view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the basis of law laid down by the Constitutional Bench decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1. Even the submission that some appeals filed in similar cases by the employees/workmen were allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considered and it is viewed that the constitutional bench decision would now govern the field. There is no merit in the pleas raised and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. September 21, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE