PER R.C. GANDHI, JUDGE:

1. This Letters patent Appeal is directed against an order dated 30-01-1999 passed in S.W.P No: 2273/98 whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the petition directing the respondents to take steps to fill up the posts of Agriculture Extension Officer substantively.

2. A few facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are: that the appellants, Junior Agriculture Assistants in the Agriculture Department, were put as in charge of the posts of Agriculture Extension Officer (AEO) on stop gap basis vide order dated 19-12-1995 issued by the respondent-State. This order was kept in abeyance on 26-12-1995. The appellants approached the Learned Single Judge seeking their continuation as Incharge AEOs. The Learned Single Judge vide order under appeal disposed of the writ petition observing that the policy of making ad hoc appointments has been deprecated by the Apex Court and accordingly issued directions for filling up the posts substantively, maintaining the impugned order dated 26-12-1995.

3. The appellants have challenged the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the same amounts to ousting the appellants without providing them an opportunity of being heard and that many other persons are still working in the stop gap arrangement in the department and the appellants have been discriminated. The order dated 26-12-1995 keeping in abeyance the earlier order dated 19-12-1995, has been passed by the Government without hearing them.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the order under appeal and other record.

5. Stop gap arrangement to a higher post does not vest any right in a public servant to hold the post continuously. Incharge, stop gap or ad hoc appointment can be made by the respondents keeping in view the provisions contained in Rule 14 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1956, which reads thus:

œTemporary appointments:- (1) Where it is necessary in the public interest owing to an emergency which has arisen and could not have been foreseen, to fill immediately a vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of service, class or category and the making of an appointment to such vacancy in accordance with these rules would involve undue delay, excessive expenditure or administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may appoint a person otherwise than in accordance with these rules temporarily with the prior approval of the Chief Minister in co-ordination until a person is appointed in accordance with these rules but such temporary appointment shall in no case exceed three months on each occasion and not more than nine months in all. xx xx xx xx

6. The stop gap arrangement wherein the appellants were asked to hold the posts of AEOs, was made by an order dated 09-12-1995, cannot be continued in any circumstance beyond 9 months. The order itself has outlived its life and is not capable of remaining in operation. It is not in dispute that the stop gap arrangement or ad hoc appointment does not vest any preferential right for promotion in a public servant occupying the office of a higher post in that capacity. Notwithstanding that it equally applies to the holder of the post in such capacity that he has no right to continue unless his service conditions or fundamental rights in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution, are infringed or violated. The order dated 19-12-1995 has outlived its life by efflux of time in relevance to the provisions of Rule 14 (supra), therefore, the relief prayed for protecting such capacity of the appellants to work against the posts on stop gap arrangement cannot be protected.

7. The next argument of Mr. Nayyar, learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants have not been heard by the single (Sic) Judge and have been condemned unheard. The argument, though appealing, is not capable of warranting any interference in the order under appeal. The appellants before us, could not improve their case for continua

Click Here to Read the rest of this document