IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 6151 of 2009 Date of Decision: 23.4.2009. Jaswinder Pal Singh Kohli --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner was earlier working in the Punjab State Hosiery & Knitwear Development Corporation Ltd., Ludhiana as Accountant. The petitioner along with the other employees of the Corporation was retrenched on being declared surplus. They challenged their retrenchment in CWP No. 15415 of 1998, which was dismissed as withdrawn. It is alleged that the State Govt. has issued circular dated 276.1996 to all the heads of the departments in the State for absorption of employees of Corporation, who were declared surplus. It is alleged that on the basis of the aforesaid circular the petitioner applied in various departments of the State Govt. for his adjustment but no adjustment has been made. In the meantime, respondent no.3 issued advertisement dated 30.5.2008 for recruitment of 160 Excise and Taxation Inspectors. It is stated that the petitioner made application to respondent no.4 i.e. the Corporation on 8.9.2008 along with his biodata for onward submission to the Excise and Taxation Department. The petitioner received a communication dated 26.12.2008 from respondent no.3, whereby he was informed that the written examination for the post in question has already been held and the process of selection is over and the prayer of CWP. No. 6151 of 2009 -2- petitioner for preferential adjustment cannot be considered. The petitioner is aggrieved of the aforesaid communication. It is admitted position that 160 posts of Excise & Taxation Inspectors were advertised by the State Govt. for direct recruitment. The petitioner was at liberty to apply for the post subject to his eligibility. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner applied to the competent authority for his selection/consideration of appointment in accordance with the advertisement. To the contrary he submitted an application to respondent no.4, the erstwhile employer of the petitioner. This application cannot be considered for selection in accordance with law. The respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for preferential employment. The petitioner had to apply and compete in accordance with the established procedure. Any preference to the petitioner without participation in the process of selection amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. No merit, petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 23.4.2009 lucky