C.W.P. No.3122 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** C.W.P. No.3122 of 2009 Date of decision : 28.5.2010 Virender Singh and another -----Petitioner. Vs. State of Haryana and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present:- Mr.Ramender Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.R.K.S.Brar, Addl. A.G.Haryana --- PERMOD KOHLI J :- 1. Respondent No.2 - Director, Industrial Training Institutes, Haryana, advertised the posts of Mechanist Instructor in Industrial Training Institutes. The petitioners applied in response to the advertisement and on the basis of the skill test and interview, they were selected and engaged on contractual basis for a period of six months w.e.f. 6.10.2008. The petitioners also executed service agreement with the respondent that their engagement was for a period of six months. The services of the petitioners were, however, dispensed with on 6.3.2009, on completion of period of six months. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents are in the process of making fresh engagements on contract basis by dispensing with the services of the petitioners. Even though the petitioners have C.W.P. No.3122 of 2009 -2- not suffered any disqualification. This petition has accordingly been filed seeking a direction to continue the petitioners on the posts till appointment of regular incumbents. In the reply filed, it is stated that the petitioners are not entitled to regularisation, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1. The petitioners are not seeking their regularisation. Hence, the reliance placed upon the judgment of Uma Devi (supra) is mis- placed. It is settled law that a temporary arrangement cannot be replaced by a similar temporary arrangement. The respondents are at liberty to make appointment on regular substantive basis by making appropriate advertisement in consonance with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. However, respondents cannot be permitted to replace the petitioners to substantive them by similar contract/temporary arrangement. In the present case, the services of the petitioners have already been dispensed with. In the event, the respondents intent to make contractual arrangement on the posts which were occupied by the petitioners, the petitioners shall have preferential right for such arrangements. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners for re- engagement, if the respondents intent to fill up the vacancies by making contractual/temporary arrangement. However, if the vacancies are intending to be filled up on regular substantive basis, C.W.P. No.3122 of 2009 -3- the respondents will do so by making appropriate advertisement in accordance with law and in that eventuality the petitioners may also apply for their consideration subject to their eligibility etc. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 28.5.2010 akm