JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE petitioners are Clerks, Meter Readers and Nakedar serving as such in the Municipal Corporation of Indore. They had objected to the Promotions granted to respondents 5 to 11. Pending their representations against such promotions, the Standing Committee of the respondent No. 1 the Corporation passed resolutions nos. 147 and 148 on 30-4-1985 and has again appointed the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to the post of Sub-Inspector (Non-techn) in supersession of the petitioners claims. It appears that ad-hoc appointments and promitions is the order of the day, and the petitioners grievance is against such appointments and prorations, being made in disregard of minimum norms of fairness. The norms of fairness having been breached and promotions made in a manner extremely arbitrary and discriminatory, giving preference to the juniors is thus violating Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Their case is that favoured junior employees ate being promoted by giving them back for entry in the promotional post under the garb of granting them ad hoc or temporary promotions. They also contend that the respondent Corporation or the Standing committee cannot grant such out of turn promotions even on ad-hoc basis, to the detriment and prejudice of the petitioners and many others like them. Principles of equity and fair play have been given a convenient go by in making such promotional , appointments. It is, therefore, prayed that the promotions of respondents 3 to 11 be quashed and a direction be made to the respondent Corporation to make promotions in accordance wi*h bye-laws, or in absence of such bye-laws or rules in accordance with principles of justness, fairness and equity. ( 2. ) THE respondent No. 4 Kishanlal Koshal has submitted his return while respondent No. 3, has merely replied to the application for ad-Interim writ, but all the necessary material and facts have been placed on record. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their return and the grounds raised therein, have also been adopted by the respondents 5 to 9. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their return and the grounds raised therein, have also been adopted by the respondents 5 to 9. They made their appearance at a very late stage when the case had already been posted for judgment, as the in grievance was that they had no notice of the petition they could not file their appearance earlier in this view of the matter, it was for this reason they were also heard although the petition had already been posted for judgment. Both of them, the Authorities promoting and those promoted, have justified the promotions made. ( 3. ) DURING the course of hearing, the Corporation was directed to produce certain documents from their record to clarify the ambiguities loft in the return. Accordingly, the Corporation has also placed the documents on record. ( 4. ) IT is neither disputed nor is if disputable, that the promotions to the post of Sub-Inspectors (Non-techn) have been made in large numbers and such promotions on ad-hoc basis have eventually been regularised years after these ad-hoc promotions. A grim truth which emerges out of the record of this petition is that in absence of rules relating to appointments and promotions governing Service Conditions of employees under the corporation well settled norms of fairness, equity have given way to arbitrariness, discrimination and favouritism in such appointments and promotions. ( 5. ) THE documents produced by the Corporation after an order from this Court reveal a very sorry and sordid state of affairs prevailing in the Corporation. ( 6. ) IT is conceivable that appointments precede the interview and resolutions making appointments succeed, both interview and appointments, what a sorry state of affairs. As back as 9th of July 1982, a notice was published about the draft rules, in a local news-paper nav-Bharat inviting objections to those rules within a month from the date of their publication, and the rules were to be considered six weeks thereafter. More than three years have elapsed, there has been no consideration as such and the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation was at pains to point out from the record whether there had ever been any consideration of any objection received to those rules. More than three years have elapsed, there has been no consideration as such and the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation was at pains to point out from the record whether there had ever been any consideration of any objection received to those rules. A resolution No: 26 passed by the Standing Committee on 264-1983 proposed for constituting a Sub-committee to consider the rules and submit its report within three months but even almost after 28 months nothing of the sort has been done by the respondents 1 and 2. Comments were invited on objections on 28-4-1983 but nothing more appears to have been done except inviting such comments from the commissioner. By another resolution No. 1351 dated 25-3-1984 the Standing committee resolved that the matter be placed before the Council and the rules be sent to the State Government for approval but whether the rules as such were even considered is a matter of any bodys guess and this consideration of rules by the General body, appears to have been deferred even on demand by two Corporators, vide notice dt. 18-7-1984 There is nothing on record that the matter was taken up for consideration before the General Body. ( 7. ) NOW in absence of such rules, for which there appears to be no concern shown on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 it is but natural, that a way out had to be found as can be seen from the Administrators orders dt. 8-6-1982 and by this order ad-hoc appointments and promotions were permitted to be made. Thus, opening the gates for such acts which the petitioners are making a grievance of. ( 8. ) CAN one imagine that the temporary appointments of as many as 7 Sub-Inspector, cancelled by the Commissioner on 11-6-1982 by order No. 143 were those very Sub-Inspectors, just 10 days after their cancellation of appointments were again promoted as Sub-Inspectors by the same Commissioner by order No. 159 dt. 21-6-1982 and the learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation was not in a position to make a categorical statement as regards any actual break in their service as Sub-Inspectors. Thus, paper-orders of cancellation, and paper-orders of promotions have been made, not one or two but in sequence and series. What initially appeared to be ad-hoc was again allowed to be perpetuated by fresh orders. Thus, paper-orders of cancellation, and paper-orders of promotions have been made, not one or two but in sequence and series. What initially appeared to be ad-hoc was again allowed to be perpetuated by fresh orders. The purpose of ad-hoc appointments, is by now well-established and needs no reiteration here, it may appear to be quite surprising but it is a grim reality that those 7 persons whose appointments were cancelled on 11-6-1982 and again promoted on 21-6-1982, were again allowed to be continued for another period of 3 months by order No. 283 dt. 20-9-1982 passed by the same Commissioner, or final publication of bye-laws and rules whichever is earlier. Needless to say that the bye-laws have not yet been placed before the General Body. No-dour these orders are shown to be innocuous in much as they do not confer any right or seniority but as facts rev all what initially started as ad-hoc, in course of time gathered so much of moss that it settled and so firmly settled that it cannot be disturbed. It is this back door entry which the petitioners want to ban. Those very 7 persons referred to avove were again allowed to continue by yet another No. 406 dt. 1-1-1983 till finalisation of a panel. Now so long as the panel is not finalised they have obtained yet another period of lease of their promotional post of Sub-Inspector (non-techn ). Preparing a panel is entirely in the hands of the respondents 1 and 2 have they shown any concern in preparing such a panel. The record produced by the Corporation on direction from the court betrays and belies not merely a concern for the preparation of a panel but also for the minimum norms of fairness expected of the respondents in such matters. By order no. 310 dt. 10-1-1984 an appointment of one Munnalal Yadav was made because one of his juniors was also promoted as Sub-Inspector (Non-techn) by Standing Committees resolution No. 818 dt. 27-12-1983. The petitioners seem to have a genuine grievance against such appointments and promotions which have been made in absence of statutory rules, and in utter disregard of norms of fairness. 310 dt. 10-1-1984 an appointment of one Munnalal Yadav was made because one of his juniors was also promoted as Sub-Inspector (Non-techn) by Standing Committees resolution No. 818 dt. 27-12-1983. The petitioners seem to have a genuine grievance against such appointments and promotions which have been made in absence of statutory rules, and in utter disregard of norms of fairness. The Standing Committee again passed resolution No. 38 on 20-4-1984, again recalling the preparation of panel at the same time further continuing the services of those 7 whose promotions were cancelled as back as on 11-6-1982 and revived on 21-6-1982. They continue for years together in the name of ad-hoc and temporary appointments or promotions. The very system under which such appointments or promotions are either made or continued, is a matter of grievance and challenge in this petition. The 7 fortunate ones promoted on ad hoc basis could continue even in April, 1984 for almost 2 years. The ripples created by such ad hoc appointments or promotions cannot go un-noticed in the Corporation and amongst its employees and they come out with their grievances alleging arbitrariness, discrimination against the respondents and justifiably so. Even on 2-5-1984 they again got a further lease of life by order No. 32 passed by the Commissioner. On 17-5-1984 by resolution No. 149 the Standing Committee constituted a panel Committee, comprising of Shri S. K. Bias, City Engineer, Shri K. C. Agrawal, Dy. Commissioner and shri H. R. Kashyap, Stores Officer, and calling applications for the post of Sub-Inspectors (Non-techn) then a circular dt. 6-6-1984 was put on the notice-board and even before the report of the panel committee could either be considered or acted upon, appointments and promotions in the name of ad hoc and temporary continued unabated. Quite a large number of applications were found to b6 not in order by the panel Committee but appointments and promotions continued unabated. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were admittedly promoted by resolutions Nos. 147 dt. 30-4-1985 and 148 of the same date. It is not in dispute that the names of these two respondents were not in the panel as the earlier panel which had been prepared had already been cancelled by order No. 142 dt. 11-6-1982. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were admittedly promoted by resolutions Nos. 147 dt. 30-4-1985 and 148 of the same date. It is not in dispute that the names of these two respondents were not in the panel as the earlier panel which had been prepared had already been cancelled by order No. 142 dt. 11-6-1982. The glaring and grim truth emerging from the documents placed is that even before the date of interview, lapsed appointments were continued to be made and as though all that has been stated above is not enough. The respondent Corporation has the temerity to deny that it acted arbitrarily and discriminatory and further deny that the promotions granted to the respondents 3 to 11 are illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india. ( 9. ) CAN there be any greater mockery of fairness than the fact that narmadaprasad the respondent No. 3 was celled for interview on 23-6-1985 at 11 a. m. before the Standing Committee vide Annexure-B-1 dt. 19-6-1985 filed by him and the same Committee issues an appointment letter on 30-4-1985. Although the appointment is said to be purely on ad hoc basis in favour of respondent No. 4 Kishanlal Koshal. What urgency could there be when the interviews were to be held just after 6 weeks. Thus, the whole process, has been put in a reverse gear by the respondents 1 and 2. Such appointments by any name whether ad hoc or temporary, can hardly be justified. ( 10. ) EVEN in the matter of the appointments made in the instant case, though term as ad hoc and temporary, in the time honoured classification the fact that they are being continued for years and years together belies the respondents claim of making ad hoc appointments and it must be remembered by such Authorities, and statutory bodies as the respondents 1 and 2 that even ad hoc appointments are not bounties to be conferred on the chosen few. Firstly, the appointments cannot be said to be ad hoc and even assuming them to be so, the arbitrary manner in which they have been done renders all such appointments liable to be quashed and they are accordingly quashed Mere absence of statutory rules does not provide any justification for making arbitrary and discriminatory appointments violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. A uniform set of norms of principles based on fair play, equity arid equality, can and should always be expected in the matter of such public employment which it is to be noted with regret is totally missing from the present case. Those who could succeed in getting ad hoc appointments are being continued to the detriment of others who are or may be eligible but have never been afforded an opportunity, of acting even on ad hoc basis. As back as in AIR 1981s. C. 1543, Sheo Dayalsinha vs. State of Bihar even if these actions are administrative in nature, it is by now well-established that even administrative actions have got to be informed with reason and fairness and it is a salutary principle of administrative law that there is no power vesting in an administrative Authority to abuse its own power. In this view of the matter the respondents cannot seek shelter behind making for such a long period extending over 3 to 4 years in some of the cases and are still being continued All such ad hoc appointments are liable to be struck-down. It exigencies and urgency of public service so demand an appointment can be made but even while making such-appointment the equality clause epitomised in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution cannot be ignored or overlooked The respondents have failed to show any such exigency or urgency. On the other hand the record produced clearly establishes such appointments as a routine practice in disregard of the claims of others who may also be eligible for such appointments on the date they were made. ( 11. ) THE respondent Kishanlal Koshal has justified his promotion mainly on the ground that he was included in the panel of Sub-Inspectors (Non-techn.) and has placed a letter dt. 24th August, 1974 (Annexure-F) from the Secretary, Municipal Corporation and also another order No. 390 dt. 29-3-1985 (Annexure-B) issued by the Commissioner respondent No. 2. This order also contains a reference to the fact that Kishanlal respondent No. 4 was in the panel and as such he was appointed as a Sub-Inspector (Non-techn.) for which the Standing Committee had also accorded sanction vide resolution No. 1314 of 24-3-1985. The respondent Corporation does not support this fact that Kishanlal Koshal continued to be in the panel when these appointments were made. The respondent Corporation does not support this fact that Kishanlal Koshal continued to be in the panel when these appointments were made. As stated earlier, by order No. 142 dt 11-6-1982 the panel had already been cancelled by the Commissioner. It does not, therefore, stand to reason as to how the order No. 390 dt. 29-3-1985 (Annexure-G) filed by respondent Kishanlal contains a recital to the effect that he (Kishanlal) was in the panel since 1961. This respondent has also placed yet another document on record to substantiate his claim of having been included in the panel. It is a letter issued by the in-charge Octroi on 24-8-1974. The respondent Corporation on direction has produced an order No, 614 dt. 28-349811, categorically stating that the sanction dt. 29-7-1974 accorded by the Commissioner for inclusion of this respondents name in the panel, stands cancelled in view of letter No. 1804/239/71 GS. dt. 17-5-1972. Thus he has no case even assuming he had any, the fact that he has suppressed a material fact about cancellation of his name from the panel is by itself sufficient to disentitle him to claim any relief and to retain the ad hoc post on this basis. It is yet another glaring example how favouritism flowers, in spite of cancellation of name from the panel. Those who have been removed from the panel, have been given ad hoc appointments just a month before the date of their interview. Can it be said that the petitioners have no legitimate grievance ? If the Authorities who are expected to act in a fair manner, turn a blind eye to such grim realities and still persist in making such appointments, it is nothing short of being unfair to fairness itself. Now taking up the case of respondent Narmadaprasad who has not filed any return as such but has merely replied to the application lot Ad Interim Writ. He seeks to justify his promotion on the ground of his educational qualifications being an M. A. and sahityaratna, with further addition that no other applicants possess such qualifications and claim an excellent service record, but there is no material on record to suggest or show as to what was the criteria fixed by the Authorities for making such promotions. Atleast the respondent Corporation does not come forth with such a statement. Atleast the respondent Corporation does not come forth with such a statement. It is not for the person promoted or appointed to justify his promotion or appointment since such a justification as of necessity must come from the Appointing Authorities as to what guidelines or norms of selections were fixed or followed in the matter of such selection. There were no guidelines. The truth which emerges out of the record is that there were no such guidelines or criteria fixed or followed; every thing went on in the name of ad hoc and temporary Thus, it is clear that even this respondent has no valid justification to offer for his promotion. The other respondents 5 to 9 have adopted the return filed by the respondents 1 and 2 who have justified their claim on the basis of their seniority and the fact that they have been working on clear vacancies since 1982. They contend that their appointments as Sub-Inspectors (Non-techn,) are not on ad hoc basis. They have filed a copy of the resolution No. 38 dt. 20-4-1984. A mere reading of this resolution filed as Annexure-R-5-9/c, would go to show that their promotions were ad hoc and temporary. There is, therefore, no substance in their claim as well. ( 12. ) SHRI Kokje learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently urged that all these promotions are liable to be quashed. Shri Dhanji on the other hand submits that the appointments have been made in accordance with the long standing practice prevailing in the Corporation. The state of affairs prevailing has already been narrated above and such a state of affairs can hardly provide a justification for its continuance. ( 13. ) CONSIDERING the question of seniority, suffice it to say, that firstly there is no combined seniority list of the different channels from which the promotion to the post of Sub-Inspectors (Non-techn. } is to be made. The respondents 5 to 9 have also submitted that although the petitioner No. 1 is senior but he is merely non-matric and as such not qualified for the post. The question is those who are entrusted with the task of making appointments i. e. respondent 1 and 2 have not come out with a statement regarding the minimum qualifications required for being appointed as Sub-Inspector (Non-techn. ). The question is those who are entrusted with the task of making appointments i. e. respondent 1 and 2 have not come out with a statement regarding the minimum qualifications required for being appointed as Sub-Inspector (Non-techn. ). In absence of any such material, discussing the question of qualification or seniority would mean an exercise in futility. ( 14. ) THE promotions of the respondents are in utter disregard of even the bare minimum rules of fairness, they are grossly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India and as such they are liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. ( 15. ) INSTANCES are exceedingly common, passing and crossing over a marked line of equality and fairness, in the matters of public employment, enter into the declared vice of corruption, so well contrived, and concealed from those whom such appointments affect. Deliberate mindfulness of the first principles of fairness on the part of those in office who invariably find a set of maxims ready-made for them which they assume and advance in the name of "urgency" and exigency, as their insignia and instruments of filling the situations, falling vacant, with a miserable consolation or promise to those deprived, "your case will be considered at the time of D. O. C. " Such human nay official or bureaucratic contrivances land many an eligible aspirants in the hands of Providence. What is then the hope and sure anchor of the deprived in face of stormy unseasonal showers of favours (of course in the name of ad hoc) on the fortunate few ? Answer lies in rigid adherence to and application of the first principle of fairness, in all its purity and vigour. ( 16. ) FOR the reasons aforesaid the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The orders of promotions of respondents 3 to 11 are hereby quashed. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed that in the event if they so desire to make appointments as Sub-Inspectors, they shall first prepare a list of all eligible candidates, and in absence of rules shall formulate uniform standards for selection applicable to all such eligible candidates, with due regard to seniority and may make promotions to the post of Sub-Inspectors (Non-techn. ). The respondents 1 and 2 shall bear the petitioners costs quantified at Rs. 250/-if certified. ). The respondents 1 and 2 shall bear the petitioners costs quantified at Rs. 250/-if certified. The outstanding amount of security deposit may be refunded to the petitioner after verification. Petition allowed.