Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
A.K. Goel, J.
Hissam Din-Qureshi - Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K Through Principal Secretary/ Commissioner - Respondent
SWP No. 2477/2000
Decided On : 09 August, 2001
Transfer - Government Orders - 998-Edu of 1991, 1302-Edu of 2000, 1317-Ldu of 2000 - The court discussed the implications of the government orders related to the transfer and appointment of the petitioner, the regularisation of the petitioner as a lecturer, and the eligibility criteria for filling the post. The court also considered the previous orders and judgments related to the appointment and regularisation of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a lecturer, sought relief against an order transferring and adjusting him to a different post. He also sought regularisation and consequential benefits as granted to other lecturers. The petitioner claimed to have been working against the post since 1991.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's appointment was on a stop-gap arrangement and did not confer any preferential claim or right to the incumbents at the time of selection/appointment by the DC/PSC. The court also noted that the petitioner's plea for regularisation and continuation in the post was not sustainable.
Issues: The issues involved the transfer and appointment of the petitioner, regularisation as a lecturer, and the eligibility criteria for filling the post.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's appointment was on a stop-gap arrangement and did not confer any preferential claim or right. The court also emphasized that no mandamus can be issued requiring the authority to violate the law or not to follow the same.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed by the court.
1. Sardul Singh, Lecturer Sociology DIET, Basohli has been ordered to be transferred and posted in DIET, Jammu vice petitioner. Later has been ordered to report to Director, School Education, Jammu for further orders of posting immediately. This is Govt. Order No. 1302- Edu of 2000 dated 11.12.2000, copy annexure "D" to the writ petition. This order was partially modified vide government order no. 1317-Ldu of 2000 dated 14.12.2000 which directs the petitioner to report to the Chief Education Officer, Poonch who has been ordered to adjust him (petitioner) against an available post of teacher in the district. In these circumstances, present writ petition has been filed for the grant of following reliefs: -
"i) a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the order impugned dated 14,12.2000. annexure"E". ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents that while giving the effect to Cabinet Decision No. 165/ 15 dated 21.10.1998 the petitioner be regularised as lecturer w.e.f. the date he was initially appointed as such and to grant him all consequential benefits, as granted to other similarly situated lecturers.
iii) writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from lowering the status of the petitioner from the post presently held by him,
iv) any other writ, direction or order as this Honble Court deems fit and appropriate be passed in favour of the pensioners and against the respondents".
10. According to petitioner he was transferred and adjusted as incharge Lecturer Sociology in his own pay and grade for a period of 06 months or till the posts are filled up by the DPC, PSC whichever is earlier. This was pur-suantto Govt. Order No. 998-Edu of 1991 dated 15.10.1991 .He claims to have been working against this post since then. A copy of this order is attached as annexure "A" with the writ petition.
11. One Amrik Singh questioned the issuance of this order by means of SWP No. 122 of 97 which came up before the Court No. 28.02.1998. It was finally disposed of in the following terms: -
"The official respondents have not filed the objections. The petitioner is challenging the appointment of respondent no. 4 as Incharge, Lecturer Sociology, DIET, Jammu. This order came to be passed on 15.10.1991.
The grievances of the petitioner are as under: -
i) That when the adhoc arrangement was made in favour of respondent no. 4, his name was not considered.
ii) That this adhoc arrangement cannot be permitted to continue for years together.
There appears merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is settled law that adhoc arrangement cannot be permitted for years together. As such respondents would take steps with a view to fill the post in question on regular basis. Let this be done within a period of three months. The period of three months would begin from the date of copy of this order alongwith writ petition and annexures thereof are made available to respondent-authorities by the petitioner. In case it is not possible for them to do the needful within aforementioned period, then respondents would be at liberty to seek extension of time. In that eventuality they have to explain each and every days delay. This petition is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of this has been placed on file as Annexure-B
12. Again feeling dissatisfied with the said order annexure B Amrik Singh preferred IPA (WP) 52/98 which was dismissed on 29.5.1998 by the Division Bench. This order is extract herein below: -
"Shri K.S. Johal submits that he argued many points before single judge but -they do not find mention in the impugned judgements. Submission is without force. Points urged before the Single Judge have been specifically recorded in the Judgement and decided accordingly in the presence of counsel for both sides. Consequently, appellant cannot be permitted to urge points which were not argued/ pressed before Single Judge".
There is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly".
13. Record of th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
