Surinder Singh v. Chandigarh Administration And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CWP-1705-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.07.2026 Surinder Singh ......Petitioner Vs.
Chandigarh Administration and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present:
Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Avinit Avasthi, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Deepak Goyat, Advocate, and Mr. Nikhil Sehrawat, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4.
**** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL) 1.
The challenge in the present writ petition is to quash the advertisement dated 06.01.2021 (Annexure P-10), vide which respondents have advertised the post of Manager (now Alumni Relations Manager). 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the nomenclature of the post is changed from 'Manager' to 'Alumni Relations Manager' just to replace the petitioner, who was working as Manager on contractual basis. He further contends that contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual employee. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petition be allowed.
3.
Per contra, learned senior counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 submits that the present case is not the case of replacement of contractual
employee with another contractual employee. He further submits that not only the nomenclature of the post but qualifications are also upgraded. He further submits that petitioner had opportunity to apply for the same but he did not fulfill the qualification/eligibility criteria, therefore, he did not apply for the same. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petition be dismissed. 4.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their able assistance.
5.
A perusal of the file shows that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis for the post of Executive Officer for a period of three years on 25.09.2017 and accordingly his contractual employment was to expire on 24.09.2020 which was further extended for a period of three months from 28.09.2020 to 31.12.2020 with notional break of one day vide order dated 23.09.2020. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.12.2020, the term was extended by one month with notional break of one day i.e. from 04.01.2021 to 31.01.2021. Thereafter, the term was extended. As per reply, the petitioner was engaged previously for a period of three years on contractual basis and thereafter, further extensions were granted to him till 31.01.2021. On 06.01.2021, respondents No.
3 and 4 advertised for engagement of 01 Alumni Relations Manager (Post Graduate with 1st Class with at least 08 years of experience in administrative support function such as relationship management role and/or in the similar nature of job preferably in Corporate Sector). A perusal of the advertisement shows that the respondents have upgraded the qualification along with nomenclature of the post which is prerogative of the respondents. Petitioner never applied for the same since he was not eligible.
advertised by respondents No.3 and 4. Admittedly and undisputedly the petitioner did not fulfill the qualification for the post which was advertised, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that a contractual employee cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employee is rejected. A perusal of the reply filed by respondents No.3 and 4 shows that in response to the advertisement, 01 candidate was appointed vide order dated 05.02.2021, which is attached as Annexure R-3/3. A perusal of the file as well as reply filed by respondents No.3 and 4 shows that present case is not the case of replacement but fresh appointment which was walk in interview and open for all to apply for the same. The petitioner did not apply for the same since he never fulfilled the qualification. 6.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed. 7.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE 01.07.2026 Virender Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No