A Single Bench of the J&K&L High Court, emphasizing the scope and essence of Article 16 of the Constitution that provides for equality of opportunity for all citizens in all matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State, as well as relying upon various pronouncements of the Supreme Court observed that any post under the State can be made only after proper advertisement has been made inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding of a selection process according to some rational criteria for adjudging the inter-se merit of the applicants to the post.

The High Court was dealing with a batch of petitions wherein the Petitioners had assailed an order issued by the Respondents whereby the services of the Petitioners were terminated, in consequence of an FIR, primarily on the ground that the Petitioners had been appointed without following the rules. One of the grounds of challenge raised by the Petitioners was that there were no recruitment rules in the respondent department when the Petitioners came to be appointed, and the same were passed only in 2008 [Jammu & Kashmir Urban Local Bodies Institution (Management)Service Recruitment Rules, 2008.] However, the Court rejected the argument of the Petitioners, holding that the Petitioners entered in the department without following the procedure prescribed by law irrespective of the fact that the Rules of 2008 came into being after the appointment of Petitioners. 

The Court observed that in light of Article 16, a State or a Union cannot make a regular appointment to a post without advertising the post in the prescribed manner and without inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding a proper selection giving all eligible candidates a fair chance to compete, and that any appointment made in contravention to said principle would be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. 

Therefore, the Court while holding that the petitioners could not have been engaged/appointed and regularized by the respondents without taking recourse to a proper selection process, even though as per their stand they were appointed by the Government/Higher Authority, declared that they do not have any right much less a legal, statutory or fundamental enforceable against the respondents, irrespective of the fact that they have had been working for a considerable period of time with the respondents, and accordingly dismissed the Petitions.