IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16387 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 14, 2010. Manoj Kumar and others .....Petitioners versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioners were appointed to perform the duties of Meter Readers and Bill Distributors in the respondent-Board on contract basis in November, 2008 through the back door entry as neither any advertisement was issued nor the claim of other eligible candidates were considered. They were relieved vide orders dated 25.5.2009 on the plea that the Senior Executive Engineer, Fazilka Division was not “in need” of their services. The petitioners sought their reinstatement/re-employment which has been turned down by the respondents vide a speaking order dated 25.3.2010 (Annexure P-7) on the plea that they were relieved as per the decision taken by the Board. The respondents have now issued an advertisement dated C.W.P.No .16387 of 2010 2 21.8.2010 (Annexure P-11) inviting applications for the posts of Meter Readers/Bill Distributors for appointment on contract basis. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the above-mentioned advertisement and a direction for their re-instatement. Reliance is placed upon a decision of this Court in 2005 (3) SCT 274 (Sangeeta Sharma versus U.T. Chandigarh). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and perused the records. In my considered view, even for making adhoc/contractual appointments, the respondent-authorities are obligated in law to follow the principle of equality enshrined in Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and no appointment could be made on pick and choose basis. Since the petitioners never entered the employment through a transparent and fair mode of appointment, they did not acquire any indefeasible right to hold any post. No case to interfere with the impugned advertisement by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. September 14, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE