HC strikes down replacement of Punjab contractual employees by another set

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an advertisement by the Punjab government seeking to replace existing contractual employees working as lab assistants with another set of contractual workers, deeming it arbitrary and contrary to established legal principles. The court made it clear that allowing such substitutions would undermine the rights of employees who have been serving under court protection for years.

“The advertisement which was issued by the respondents to replace the petitioners with another set of contractual employees is contrary to the settled principle of law and, thus, cannot be sustained and the said advertisement is accordingly set aside,” Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi asserted.

Delivering the verdict on two connected petitions, Justice Sethi relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in “State of Haryana versus Piare Singh” case, which prohibited such replacements. The Bench further made it clear that temporary or contractual employees must be replaced only by regularly selected employees, not by another temporary batch.

“Once, the petitioners were already selected and working on the post in question, the post could not have been filled up again on the same terms and conditions, as per the settled principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court,” Justice Sethi asserted.

The Bench during the course of hearing observed the petitioners were employed as lab assistants on a contractual basis since 2012. The posts were re-advertised in 2015 with identical terms, prompting the petitioners to challenge the move.

The Bench was also told that they were working for the [ast nine years following an interim order passed by the court. “The only intention of the respondent was to replace the petitioners with another set of contractual employees which cannot be done,” it was added.

Justice Sethi asserted that the petitioners had continued working under the interim order for the past nine years, strengthening their claim against replacement. “As the petitioners are already working keeping in view interim order granted by this court for the last nine years, they will be allowed to continue in service till the work on the post and this is subject to the satisfactory work and conduct of petitioners and they will not be replaced by another set of employees on the same terms and conditions,” the court observed.

The Bench noted that candidates selected under the annulled advertisement were seeking to join the posts. Rejecting their plea, Justice Sethi asserted allowing their selection would contravene the settled legal principles.

“The arguments that private respondents-candidates, who have been selected in pursuance to different selection, should be allowed to continue will be contrary to the settled principle of law and, therefore, no benefit of any appointment, in pursuance to the advertisement, which has been set aside, can be allowed in favour of the private respondents,” Justice Sethi concluded.