Sanjeev Kumar And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 16844 P&H

                                                             Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:127282




CWP No.2358 of 2021                                -1-                  2023:PHHC:127282


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH
210
                                          *****

CWP No.2358 of 2021 Date of Decision : 29.9.2023

Sanjeev Kumar and another ..... Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

Present: Mr. Sube S. Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioners

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, DAG, Haryana

---

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J. (ORAL):

This petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus

directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to join as Guest

Instructors in Turning Machine Shop and Fitting Shop at Government

Polytechnics, Haryana, since they have already served the respondents

against the said posts from 2008 to 2013.

2. Briefly, as per facts on record, petitioner no.1 and 2 were

engaged by respondent no.3/Principal, GBN Polytechnic, Nilokheri, as

Guest Instructors on hourly basis in Turning Machine Shop and Fitting

Shop respectively, and paid remuneration on hourly basis as per the

norms. Petitioner no.1 was engaged on different dates between August

2009 to May 2013; and petitioner no.2 between August 2008 to

November 2011, as per details given in the written statement. This was

only a temporary stop gap arrangement in the academic interests of the

students. Petitioner no.1 was not re-engaged due to non-availability of

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:127282

CWP No.2358 of 2021 -2- 2023:PHHC:127282

workload after July 2013, and petitioner no.2 left the Institute after

November 2011. No visiting faculty/Guest Instructor was engaged in

place of the petitioners.

2.1 It has also come on record that the respondents issued

advertisement on 27.1.2021, Annexure P-10, inviting applications from

eligible candidates for preparing a panel of Guest Lecturers/Instructors in

Turning Machine Shop and Fitting Shop, in different government

polytechnics. The petitioners applied in response thereto.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to dispute

the facts afore stated. He, however, has submitted that keeping in view the

petitioners' earlier experience they should be given weightage for

empanelment as Guest Instructors in response to advertisement dated

27.1.2021. He has further placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in

CWP No.18620 of 2009 titled Neelam and others v. State of Haryana and

others, decided on 25.10.2010.

4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that as per

instructions from respondent no.3/Principal, Government Polytechnic,

Nilokheri, even today no visiting faculty/Guest Instructor is working in

the Turning and Fitting shop in the Polytechnic.

5. Heard.

6. Undisputedly, the petitioners were engaged as Guest Instructors

in the polytechnic between 2008 to 2013. Without going into the fact

whether they were relieved as Guest Instructors or left the institute on

their own, the fact remains that the petitioners have not been in service

since 2013/2011, nor were they been replaced by any other contractual

employee. The judgment of this Court in Neelam case (supra) is to the

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:127282

CWP No.2358 of 2021 -3- 2023:PHHC:127282

effect that a contractual employee cannot be removed/replaced by similar

temporary arrangement except on account of unsatisfactory service or

misconduct on their part, or if, their services were not needed. This

judgment has no application to the petitioners' case, since they have not

been replaced by any other contractual employee.

7. Further, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any weightage

for the service rendered by them as Guest Instructors in the polytechnic,

since learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any

policy or instructions which entitles them to such weightage. Besides, the

petitioners have already applied for empanelment as Guest Instructors in

response to the advertisement issued by the respondents and there is

nothing on record to indicate that their candidature was not considered by

the respondents. Further, there is no explanation as to why the petition

was filed in 2021, after a long delay of more than eight years of being dis-

continued in service.

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the

petition, and it stands dismissed.

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 29.9.2023 Ashwani

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:127282

3 of 3