← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/14223/2017disposed of

Robin Sanwat And ORS v. State Of Haryana And ORS.

2023-01-17Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH  



Date of decision:     Robin Sanwat and others

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

     

  

  

  

 



     

        !  ****  

  !



  Prayer in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to limit the period of appointment of the petitioners on the post of instructors in various ITIs in Haryana and not to replace the petitioners against other contractual employees. Vide order dated 05.07.2017, a Coordinate Bench has directed that           "        ! "    ! #!   #!

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been working in various ITIs in Haryana since 2013-2017 and there is not even a single complaint against any of the petitioners. He relies upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of 'Hargurpratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab', 2007 (13) SCC 292. MANGAL SINGH 2023.01.18 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

          Learned State counsel does not dispute the fact that the petitioners were appointed as Instructors on contract basis but the fact remains that no orders have been passed qua disengaging the services of the petitioners by the authorities and the petitioners have filed the present petition only on the basis of their apprehension.

$             % % #    Undisputedly, the petitioners have been working as Instructors in different ITIs in Haryana since 2013-2017 on contract basis. As per the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the stand of the answering respondents is that the petitioners are still working and will continue till the regular incumbents join and no action has been taken by the respondents to dispense with their services.

In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the petition is premature and has been filed by the petitioners only on the basis of their apprehension.

The petition is disposed of being premature.

    

 

  

 " 

   

    &'%( )'*   &(   )'* MANGAL SINGH 2023.01.18 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document