Trial courts must respect prior rulings on employment stability during appointment processes.

O R D E R As per Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Singh Dogra, Member (J)

1. The instant petition has been filed by ld. counsel for the applicant seeking following relief:

i. Direction to the respondents not to replace the applicant with similar arrangements until the post on which the applicant is working is filled up by regular appointment as and when the process is initiated by the competent authority.

ii. An identical application involving an identical issue has been disposed by the Hon'ble Tribunal vide Order dated 13/12/2024 passed in OA 1374/2024 titled "Vikas Thappa & ors. Vs Union Territory of J & K" directing the respondent no to replace the applicant with similar arrangements until the posts are filled by regular appointment by the process initiated by the competent authority. The facts of the case are similar, the P KO UMO AJA R I DDSAC1492D17a3tNiN a ag e c5efm tD 3:i n ea6ct faCo p :9 42 7K l g 2= c c, ,oy A r f 8 0I S E fa bN Ss 7 2E =ip 7i c, 0 5Hg ph 1ReO 3 .n M oe 2 0 I5e J= A or 8 7I 3 ad RC j3 .G L ac 2m cN,eb k4r 5 2aSn m uy U6 e 1d t mT 7uPr M6 7ea fR aO 6 2 : J Bl 3c rE 6 1aAO iE, 8pb eE ndP :RJ ka 9 4dTmA 3o =8 2 5k= 1s i 0 1" +nK "t , 69 8W 0a iU P 2s 2 3 5lCt 9aM h3 b 'r 30zao ob 1A 0a 9td na 3i 'R rv @e e8 9aeI = =9 2t g 1 c 2T R m38 0r oi 10 aab a 30 7iu ld .60 en c, b1 6 a oO 3, 4l m 4Lp fJ 1,8=pa 8C9omja e1s Nmm di 5t =4em du Pd e CuB 1O3, 5he 6 OS 6in de Jb=c 5f A dhJ fS 2 8 A, K e f 4OM 0c UbbU rM dMe b= 0tU 0 Aa a6 r R8y 4 0I 9 69 issues raised are identical the applicant therefore seeks issuance of an identical direction against the respondent on the ground of parity.

2. Ld. counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant would be satisfied if the present Original Application is disposed of with a direction to respondents to treat this O.A. as representation of the applicant and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within time frame.

3. Ld. counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer made by ld. counsel for the applicant. 4. Heard ld. counsels for the parties.

5. In view of the above, the Original Application is disposed of with a direction to respondents to treat this O.A. as representation of the applicant and consider the case of the applicant in light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of:

(a) State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Piara Singh & Ors.

Reported in 1992 (4) SCC 118.

(b) State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Suresh Kumar Verma & Anr. reported in 1996 (7) SCC 562.

(c) Manish Gupta vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti , {SLP (C) No. 12946 of 2017} .

6. In the aforesaid judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held that one set of contract employees cannot be replaced with another set of employees engaged in the very same terms except P KO UMO AJA R I DDSAC1492D17a3tNiN a ag e c5efm tD 3:i n ea6ct faCo p :9 42 7K l g 2= c c, ,oy A r f 8 0I S E fa bN Ss 7 2E =ip 7i c, 0 5Hg ph 1ReO 3 .n M oe 2 0 I5e J= A or 8 7I 3 ad RC j3 .G L ac 2m cN,eb k4r 5 2aSn m uy U6 e 1d t mT 7uPr M6 7ea fR aO 6 2 : J Bl 3c rE 6 1aAO iE, 8pb eE ndP :RJ ka 9 4dTmA 3o =8 2 5k= 1s i 0 1" +nK "t , 69 8W 0a iU P 2s 2 3 5lCt 9aM h3 b 'r 30zao ob 1A 0a 9td na 3i 'R rv @e e8 9aeI = =9 2t g 1 c 2T R m38 0r oi 10 aab a 30 7iu ld .60 en c, b1 6 a oO 3, 4l m 4Lp fJ 1,8=pa 8C9omja e1s Nmm di 5t =4em du Pd e CuB 1O3, 5he 6 OS r 6in de Jb=c 5f A dhJ fS 2 8 A, e K e f 4OM 0c UbbU rM dMe b= 0tU 0 Aa g a6 r R8y 4 0I 9 69ular hand.

7. The respondents are directed to decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The respondents are further directed to communicate the order so passed to the applicant. The whole exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

8. With these directions, the O.A. No. 1048 of 2025 is disposed of.

9. However, there shall be no order as to costs.