Dalip Singh v. The State Of Haryana & Others

CWP-5130-2018 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-5130-2018 Date of decision: - 16.05.2019 Dalip Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

The State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present:- Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Nidhi Garg, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Ms. Navjot Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 4.

Mr. Munish Garg, Advocate for Mr. Vishal Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.3.

**** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the orders (Annexure P-5 and P-6) by which respondents No.3 and 4 were appointed on contract basis for a period of one year.

Reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.2 and 4, today in the Court and the same is taken on record. A copy thereof has been supplied to opposite counsel.

NARESH KUMAR 2019.05.21 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP-5130-2018 -2Counsel for respondent No.3 states that period of one year has already been expired and respondent No.3 is no longer in service. Counsel for respondents No.2 and 4 pleads ignorance about the continuance of respondent No.4 in service after an expiry of one year. As the appointments were only for a period of one year and there is nothing on record to show that respondents No.3 and 4 have been granted extension, therefore, present writ petition has been rendered infructuous due to flux of time and the same is hereby disposed of as such.

In case the petitioner has any grievance in any appointments which might be made henceforth, he is free to avail his appropriate remedy in respect of those appointments.

( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) May 16, 2019 JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes Whether reportable?

No NARESH KUMAR 2019.05.21 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh