115 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON: 18.02.2026 SONU .....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present: Mr. Arjun Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner ***

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J Prayer

1. This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying or the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the speaking order dated 14.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2, in compliance of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP- 18628-2021, whereby the representation dated 20.08.2024 (Annexure P-3)

submitted by the petitioner, has been rejected.

Brief Facts

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Peon on 12.07.2018 under Outsourcing Policy-II after participating in a selection process conducted pursuant to advertisement dated 29.04.2018 issued for filling six vacant posts of Peon in the Prosecution Department. The petitioner successfully cleared the written test conducted on 24.06.2018 and joined the post after selection. Subsequently, on

23.01.2019, the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that regular recruitment to Group-D posts, including the post of Peon, had been carried out by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission through Advertisement No. 04 of 2018. Thereafter, the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana issued instructions dated 02.02.2019 providing that contractual Group-D employees engaged against sanctioned posts should be retained where vacancies remained even after regular recruitment and those already relieved could be re-engaged against available vacant posts. The petitioner submitted various representations seeking re- engagement against the vacant posts. Information obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act also confirmed the existence of vacant posts of Peon in the department. The petitioner earlier approached this Court in CWP No. 18628 of 2021, which was disposed of on 24.07.2024 with a direction to the respondents to decide the petitioner’s representation. In compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted a fresh representation on 20.08.2024, which was rejected by the respondents through speaking order dated 14.10.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

Contentions on behalf of the petitioner

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s claim for re-engagement is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the binding Government instructions dated 02.02.2019. It is submitted that the petitioner had been appointed after a due and lawful selection process against sanctioned vacant posts and therefore his services could not have been terminated when vacancies admittedly continued to exist. It is further argued that the Government instructions specifically directed retention or re-engagement of contractual Group-D employees where posts remained vacant even after regular recruitment. According to the petitioner, despite the existence of vacant posts confirmed through RTI replies, the respondents failed to consider his case for reappointment.

4. Learned counsel submits that it is a settled principle of law that a contractual or ad-hoc employee appointed through due process cannot be replaced by another contractual or temporary employee and can only be displaced by a regularly appointed candidate. The refusal of the respondents to re-engage the petitioner, while allowing the posts to remain vacant or to be filled through other temporary arrangements, is therefore alleged to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner Analysis

6. Upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged as a Peon on 12.07.2018 under Outsourcing Policy-II on contractual basis. The engagement of t