Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajneesh Kumari vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042620
2024:PHHC:042620
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
108 CWP-20425-2013
Date of decision: 01.04.2024
RAJNEESH KUMARI ....PETITIONER
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Ms. Anjali Sheoran, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate
for the respondent No. 3.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to regularize her service
as Field Assistant.
2. The petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 3 as Field Assistant
in November' 2005 on temporary basis. Her contract was renewed from time to
time, however, it was not extended/renewed after October' 2013 rather she was
offered to work as an Assistant to Librarian w.e.f. 06.11.2013.
3. Ms. Anjali Sheoran, Advocate submits that it is a settled proposition
of law that a temporary employee cannot be replaced by another temporary
employee. The respondent during the pendency of present petition appointed
other temporary employees and did not extend contract of the petitioner.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hargurpratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others,
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042620
(2007) 13 SCC 292, has held that one set of contractual employees should not be
replaced by another set of contractual employees.
4. In the case in hand, concededly, the petitioner was appointed on
contract basis and her contract was not extended/renewed after October' 2013.
She vide communication dated 06.11.2013 was offered to join as Assistant to
Librarian. A period of more than 10 years has passed away from the date of non-
extension of contract period of the petitioner.
5. A Division Bench of this Court in Lokesh Rana and another Vs.
Union of India and others, LPA No. 513 of 2022 has held that a contractual
employee has no right to get his contract renewed which was for a limited
period. The relevant extracts of the said judgment read as:-
"The facts of the present case undisputedly establish that the
contractual appointment of the appellants has come to an end in
2019 and that fresh appointments have also been made pursuant to
the impugned advertisement in which the appellants had also
participated and two of them have also been selected and
appointed. In the backdrop of the aforesaid admitted facts, the law
is settled that once the period of contractual appointment is over,
the High Court, in exercise of its extra ordinary power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct continuance
of service beyond the contractual period as that would amount to
grant of an open ended permanent appointment by the High Court
even in the absence of any order of appointment or engagement on
the part of the employer. The direction seeking continuation after
the contractual period is over, therefore, cannot be granted and has
rightly been rejected. In view of the position, as sketched out above,
we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order and
judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge. The appeal being
bereft of merit is, accordingly, dismissed."
6. It is conceded fact that petitioner was appointed on contractual basis
and she has already been discharged from service. The petitioner is relying upon
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042620
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hargurpratap Singh (supra). The
aforesaid judgment has been delivered in the facts and circumstances involved
therein. A Division Bench of this Court in Lokesh Rana (supra) has held that a
candidate who has been appointed on contractual basis for a particular period
cannot claim continuation of service. The petitioner is no more in service and
might be replaced by another employee.
7. In the wake of above discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the present petition being bereft of merit deserves to be dismissed
and accordingly dismissed.
01.04.2024 [JAGMOHAN BANSAL]
manoj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
