IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20878 of 2011 Date of Decision : November 11, 2011. Bijender Kumar .....Petitioner versus The Executive Engineer (HUDA) and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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 petitioner was statedly employed as a Beldar on 1.8.1995 by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'HUDA') without any advertisement or inviting names of other eligible candidates from the Employment Exchange. The petitioner is said to have worked till 1.6.1996. The industrial dispute raised by him against alleged retrenchment has been answered by the Labour Court and rightly so holding that the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement in service as the appointment itself was dehors of the rules and the Constitutional scheme of equality. The principles enunciated in Harjinder Singh versus Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (JT 2010 (1) SC 598 can also not be invoked by CWP No.20878 of 2011 [2] the petitioner as that was a case of repeated appointments which for all intents and purposes amounted to unfair labour practice. Reference to para No.11 of the decision in Harjinder Singh's case (supra) to urge that the respondents took a wrong plea of back door entry of the petitioner, also does not come to the petitioner's rescue for the obvious reason that while challenging the Labour Court Award, he has not made even a whisper that he was employed after following a selection process consistent with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. No case to interfere with the impugned Award is made out. Dismissed. November 11, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE