In this writ petition, petitioner has assailed the

Notification dated 25.08.2018 issued by the second

respondent, inviting applications for the post of Training

Co-ordinators (HRD).

3

2.

Petitioner claims to be appointed as State

Training Co-ordinator (HRD) in the office of respondent

No.3, after participation in the interview on 05.04.2010. It

is further stated that the petitioner has executed

undertaking before respondent No.3 and her appointment

is against permanent vacancy and the same is essential

insofar as sanitation and cleanliness programme and

project launched by the respondent-authorities. The

respondent-authorities continued the services of the

petitioner as a temporary employee instead of appointing

her as permanent employee. In the meanwhile, petitioner

requested the respondent-authorities for regularization of

her services. However, the respondent-authorities have

issued notification dated 25.08.2018 (Annexure-A) inviting

applications from the eligible candidates for various posts

including Training Co-ordinators. Being aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

3.

Sri

P.Vilaskumar,

learned

Senior

Counsel

appearing on behalf of Sri Nitesh Kumar, learned counsel

4

for the petitioner argued that the impugned notification

issued by the respondent-authorities is contrary to law as

the respondent-authorities are not allowed to invite new

applications from the candidates for the post of temporary

Training

Co-ordinator

in

the

place

of

petitioner.

Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.

4.

Sri Shivakumar R. Tengli, learned Additional

Government

Advocate

appearing

for

respondent-

authorities sought to justify the impugned notification at

Annexure-A and submitted that though the impugned

notification is issued, the respondent-authorities have not

resorted to disturb the petitioner at any point of time and

therefore, by reiterating the averments made in the

statement of objections, sought to justify the impugned

action.

5.

In the light of the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties, the issue

involved in this writ petition is,

5

Whether

a

temporary

employee

be

replaced/substituted by another temporary

employee?

6.

Undisputedly,

the

petitioner

has

been

appointed as Temporary Training Co-ordinator pursuant to

the Notification dated 25.08.2018 and she has been

continued to work on contractual obligation. Subsequently,

the respondent-authorities have issued the impugned

notification at Annexure-A calling for appointment on

temporary basis. It is well settled principle of law that one

temporary employee cannot be replaced or substituted by

another temporary employee. In this regard, the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Hargurpratap Singh vs. State

of Punjab and Others reported in (2007)13 SCC 292 at

paragraph-3 has held as under:

“3. We have carefully looked into the

judgment of the High Court and other pleadings

that have been put forth before this Court. It is

clear that though the appellants may not be

entitled to regular appointment as such it cannot

be said that they will not be entitled to the

6

minimum of the pay scale nor that they should

not be continued till regular incumbents are

appointed. The course adopted by the High

Court is to displace one ad hoc arrangement by

another ad hoc arrangement which is not at all

appropriate for these persons who have gained

experience which will be more beneficial and

useful to the colleges concerned rather than to

appoint

persons

afresh

on

ad

hoc

basis.

Therefore, we set aside the orders made by the

High Court to the extent the same deny the

claim of the appellants of minimum pay scale

and

continuation

in

service

till

regular

incumbents are appointed. We direct that they

shall

be

continued

in

service

till

regular

appointments are made on minimum of the pay

scale. The appeals shall stand allowed in part

accordingly.”

7.

Following the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex

Court, I am of the view that one contractu