Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the order dated 2.12.2005, Annexure P-10, passed by the respondents vide which the claim of the petitioner for adjustment/absorption under the Instructions dated 13.5.1997 has been rejected. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Sanitary Supervisor during the strike of the employees of the Municipal Committee in the year 1996-97. Having worked during the strike period, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for adjustment/absorption in terms of the Instructions dated 13.5.1997, as regular employee of the Municipal Committee. 3. On 13.5.1997, a circular was issued by the Haryana Government, to the effect that the adhoc employees and daily wagers who were recruited against the vacancies during strike, be adjusted against the available vacancies. If there is no vacancy, then a seniority list be made and they be adjusted on further vacancies on priority basis. In view of the said Instructions, the petitioner sought adjustment against the regular posts which claim was declined by the respondents vide order dated 2.12.2005, Annexure P-10. It was found therein that the petitioner was engaged only on contract basis, therefore, he is not covered by the Instructions dated 13.5.1997 and that the petitioner has not completed 240 days in a calander year. 4. An additional affidavit dated 3.3.2008 has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, enclosing Circular dated 19.2.2007 of the State Government to the effect that it has been decided by the Government not to absorb against any employee in the Municipal services who had worked during the strike period of Municipal Employees in the 1996-97. 5. A perusal of the order Annexure P-10 shows that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis, may be, such appointment was during the period of strike of the Municipal employees. The mere fact that the petitioner has worked during the strike period, will not confer any right to seek appointment. The discharge of work during strike of other employees is not a qualification for appointment on priority basis, which may satisfy the requirement of equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates in terms of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. In view thereof, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition which may warrant interference of this Court in writ jurisdiction. 7. The writ petition stands dismissed.