The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering the special circumstances and the time that had elapsed since an appointment when determining whether to cancel the appointment. The court also emphasized the need to avoid making similar appointments in the future that may undermine confidence in the recruitment system.

The dispute in the writ petition/appeal relates to the appointment of respondent No. 4, Asif Hamid Khan, (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) on the post of Trade Agent. In the writ petition prayer of the petitioner/appellant, Mukhtar-ul-Aziz, is for quashing the impugned order of appointment dated 13.12.1990 and for a madamus to allow him (petitioner) to continue on the post till proper selection and appointment. By order dated 12.3.1990, a learned Single Judge of this Court referred the case to larger Bench for decision on the points formulated. Feeling aggrieved by observations/findings regarding contractual nature of his employment, terminable at one months notice by either side, the petitioner preferred appeal in hand under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The dispute being same and the appeal arising from the writ petition itself, both writ petition and appeal were taken up for hearing together.

2. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is that on 15.1.1990 he was appointed as Trade Agent and posted at Bombay on contract basis for a period of one year. Prior to that, he was practising law and working as Government Advocate at Srinagar. He was given assurance that the appointment would be regularized within six months. He joined on 29.1.1990. In April 1990 he came to learn that his services were terminated. He filed a writ petition, SWP No. 23/1990, in which on 24.4.1990 interim order was passed and he was allowed to continue on the post, "if not already relieved." According to the petitioner, he was not relieved from the post as none had joined in his place by that time, and he would therefore be deemed to continue on the post by virtue of the interim order. He also received salary for the month of April 1990. There is a dispute in this regard. According to the respondents, the petitioner stood relieved prior to the interim order and in his place one G.M.Zahid was posted. Regarding drawal of salary it is said that the petitioner himself was the Drawing and Disbursing officer and thus managed to get salary. Be that as it may, the petitioner challenged the order of transfer/posting of G.M.Zahid in SWP No. 168/1990 and the order was stayed. On 16.7.1990 the respondent was appointed as Additional Trade Agent on the newly created post for six months. According to the petitioner, the additional post was created only to accomodate the respondent. On 23-12-1990, the post of Additional Trade Agent was abolished and the respondent was appointed as Trade Agent and posted in place of G.M.Zahid who was sent to Delhi as Secretary to Resident Commissioner. He filed the present writ petition on 27.12.1990.

3. Mr.M.A.Qayoom, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondent was appointed on extraneous considerations as he happened to be the son of a senior bureaucrat, Shri Hamidullah Khan, the then Additional Chief Secretary, who used his clout and influence on the administration to get him appointed. Section 133 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir provides for prior consultation with the Public Service Commission in all appointments to civil services and on civil posts, but completely bypassing the Commission and violating all norms the appointment was made. The creation of the post of Additional Trade Agent for a period of six months and abolition of the post even before the expiry of the stipulated period was aimed at accomodating the respondent. Under rule 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Hospitality and Protocol (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1981, appointment could be made by direct recruitment, among other modes, but for making the appointment the post was required to be advertised and applications invited from intending candidates which was not done resulting in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. There was also violation of the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Limitations of Fu