An ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee. They can only be replaced by a candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Dhar, J. - The petitioners have challenged Advertisement Notice No.3 of 2022 dated 17.11.2022, whereby, respondent No.2 has invited applications for temporary engagement of Staff Nurses on academic arrangement basis initially for a period of six months. A further direction has been sought by the petitioners upon the respondents to allow them to continue on the posts of Staff Nurses till such time these posts are filled up on substantive basis.

2. As per the case of the petitioners they responded to the Advertisement Notice No.5 of 2020 dated 07.10.2020 issued by respondent No.2, whereby applications were invited for engagement on academic arrangement basis for the posts of Staff Nurses for a period of six months or till such time the posts are filled up on substantive basis. The petitioners participated in the selection process and they were engaged as Staff Nurses in terms of Government Order No.16-SKIMS of 2021 dated April 28, 2021. According to the petitioners, after the expiry of initial period of their engagement, extension was given by respondent No.2 for continuation of their services from time to time. Last of such extensions was granted in favour of the petitioner in terms of Communication No.GAD-MTGOSKIM/15/2021-Part(1) dated 22.11.2022 till ending of November, 2022. In the meanwhile, respondent No.2 issued the impugned Advertisement Notice, inviting applications for filling up of the vacant posts of Staff Nurses on academic arrangement basis.

3. The petitioners have challenged the impugned Advertisement Notice primarily on the ground that it was impermissible in law for the respondents to replace the temporary arrangement of engagement of petitioners with a similar arrangement. According to the petitioners even though their appointment is purely of temporary and contractual in nature, yet the respondents cannot replace them by a similar arrangement.

4. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing a reply thereto. In their reply the respondents have submitted that the posts held by the petitioners are purely on contract basis and once their contract came to an end they have no legal right to continue. It has been further submitted that it is open to the petitioners to participate in fresh selection process and they can again be engaged on vacant posts of Staff Nurses if they succeed in the selection process. It has been contended by the respondents that the services of the petitioners were engaged on academic arrangement basis so as to take care of the exigencies that had cropped up due to the spread of Covid-19 pandemic in the year 2020. It is further submitted that though the petitioners were engaged as Jr. Staff Nurses but they were made to work on the posts of Sr. Staff Nurses, because those posts were lying vacant on account of stay order passed by this Court in another writ petition. It has been submitted that now the litigation relating to the promotion to the posts of Sr.Staff Nurses has come to an end and as such the Jr. Staff Nurses are to be promoted to these posts. It is claimed that on account of this development the respondents have issued the fresh Advertisement Notice for filling up of the posts of Jr. Staff Nurses on academic arrangement basis.

5. It has been contended by the respondents that as on the date of filing of the writ petition the petitioners are no more on the rolls of the Institute, as their contract of engagement has already expired, as such, they cannot maintain the instant writ petition. It is also contended that the competent authority has taken a decision that the contracts of petitioners would not be extended beyond November 2022, as is clear from the communication dated 22.11.2022 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government and, as such, the petitioners have no right to challenge the impugned Advertisement Notice.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. There is no dispute to the fact that the engagement of the petitioners on