Naveen v. State of Haryana and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
CWP-10388-2018 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 03.09.2025 by Sandeep Moudgil, J (oral). Article 226 certiorari against order dated 6.4.2018 (P-4) directing engagement of petitioner through private agency; mandamus sought against replacement by fresh contract employee. State counsel (on instructions from Prashant Kumar, Executive Engineer, Sonipat): no proposal to remove petitioner; replacement only by regular appointment; case to be considered under the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024 subject to Haryana Kaushal Rojgar Nigam registration. Senior counsel left with no cause of action; petition disposed of with observations. Advocates: R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with Kartikey Chaudhary for petitioner; Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Haryana for State.
What did the court decide?
No substantive relief (neither certiorari nor mandamus) was granted; the petition was disposed of with the recorded observations that there is no proposal to remove the petitioner, that he will not be replaced by any other contractual employee except by regular appointment, and that his case will be considered under the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024 subject to his registration in the Haryana Kaushal Rojgar Nigam.