- (1.) The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of advertisement dated 20.03.2008 whereby an advertisement has been issued inviting applications for appointment on contract basis on different posts.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner No. 1 has been appointed on contract basis on 23.03.2000, whereas petitioner No. 2 on 31.08.2004 and petitioners No. 3 to 5 on 18.09.2007. In terms of the conditions of appointment, consolidated salary is payable to the petitioners and they have been engaged for a specific period. Though the petitioners have not referred to any advertisement in respect of appointment of petitioners No. 1 and 2 but petitioners No. 3 to 5 were appointed in pursuance of advertisement, Annexure P-5, whereby applications were invited for appointment on advertised posts on consolidated pay and for a specific period of six months.
(3.) Petitioners No. 3 to 5 have worked for a period of six months, whereas petitioner No. 1 was appointed in 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not refer to any selection process whereby applications were invited from the general public and appointments were made in terms of the Rules of appointment applicable in the department. Similar is the position in respect of respondent No. 2. It could not be pointed out that petitioners No. 3 to 5 have been appointed against the posts which are available under the rules and in terms of the conditions of recruitment specified in such rules. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court only on the ground that since they were appointed on contract basis at one point of time, they were entitled to continue on such post till such time regular appointments are made.;