IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 10357 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 29th August, 2011. Dr. Avinash Kumar Petitioner through Mr. Dr. Balram Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate. Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 10357, 17763 of 2010, 1378 and 3235 of 2011 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. The facts have, however, been extracted from CWP No. 10357 of 2010 for the sake of brevity. The petitiones were appointed as Lecturers in respondent No. 3 College on contract basis and their initial appointment was up to 28.02.2009. Except petitioners No. 1, 2 and 8, none of them fulfilled the educational qualifications prescribed by the University Grants Commission. Be that as it may, the short relief sought by the petitioners from this Court was that they may be allowed to continue till the posts are filled on regular basis. The respondents though have filed detailed reply. However, it does not appear to be their intention that the petitioners are being replaced by another set of contractual employees. In other words, the petitioners are being allowed to continue on contract basis till they are replaced by regular Lecturers. That being so, the writ petitioners are rendered infructuous and are disposed of accordingly. Dasti. August 29, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE