114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON: 05.02.2026 SANJEEV .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present: Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate for the petitioner.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondents No. 1 to 3, to allow the petitioner to continue working as Tubewell Operator in the Village Lottan, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala with further prayer to quash the impugned appointment list (Annexure P-4) issued by respondent No.3-Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Naraingarh, whereby, the petitioner’s name was wrongfully omitted.

2. Briefly stated, the case set up by the petitioner is that he was engaged as a Tubewell Operator on contractual basis on 01.06.2024 in Village Lottan under the supervision of the Panchayat authorities. According to the petitioner, he had been discharging his duties satisfactorily and without any complaint. However, subsequently the respondents issued a fresh appointment list (Annexure P-4), thereby replacing the petitioner and appointing another person in his place. Aggrieved against the said action, the petitioner has approached this Court by invoking its extraordinary writ jurisdiction seeking continuation in service and quashing of the impugned appointment list.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been working diligently and that the action of the respondents in replacing him is arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is argued that the petitioner had a legitimate expectation to continue in service and that his services could not have been dispensed with without assigning any reasons or providing him an opportunity of hearing.

4. Per contra, Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. AG, Haryana appearing on advance notice on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner was merely a contractual employee engaged for a limited period and that no vested right accrued to him to continue in service. It is further submitted that the impugned appointment list was issued as per administrative requirements and in accordance with the applicable guidelines. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has approached this Court after an inordinate and unexplained delay of ten months and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of laches.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. At the outset, it is evident from the pleadings that the petitioner was engaged purely on a contractual basis with effect from 01.06.2024. It is well settled that a contractual employee does not acquire any indefeasible right to continue in service beyond the terms of the contract. The engagement of such an employee is governed strictly by the terms and conditions of the contract and the employer retains the discretion to discontinue the services in accordance with those terms.

7. In “ S tate Bank of India v. S.N. Goyal 2008 (8) SCC 92” , the Supreme Court discussing the distinction between contracual nature of service and held that, “Re : Question (i) - Enforcement of a contract of personal service.

11. Where the relationship of master and servant is purely contractual, it is well settled that a contract of personal service is not specifically enforceable, having regard to the bar contained in section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Even if the termination of the contract of employment (by dismissal or otherwise) is found to be illegal or in breach, the remedy of the employee is only to seek damages and not specific performance. Courts will neither declare such termination to be a nullity nor declare that the contract of employment subsists nor grant the consequential relief of reinstatement. The three well recognised exceptions to this rule are :

(i) where a civil servant is