1. Having been appointed as a Litigation Officer in the J&K State Road Transport Corporation (hereafter the Corporation), the petitioner came to be terminated from the said employment by the impugned order which resdinded the appointment order issued by Managing Director of the Corporation on 23rd April 1993, was passed by the Chairman of the Corporation on 28-4-1993.

2. The petitioner claims that being a law graduate, having seven years experience as an Advocate he applied to the Corporation for being appointed as the head of its legal cell as it is had a good number of cases for and against it in various courts. On consideration of the application the Managing Director of the Corporation vide order no. MD/ PS/CJ/ JKSRTC/1969-75, dated 23-4-93 not only appointed him but also appointed one Sh. Pir Seth of Jammu as a Litigation Officer for Kashmir and Jammu divisions respectively. The pay scale being Rs. 1825-3250.

3. It is claimed that in-pursuance to this letter of appointment the petitioner joined the Corporation as such Litigation Officer on 23rd of April, 1993 vide the joining report to the respondent no. 3 which was endorsed by the Manager (Administration) of the Corporation.

4. Respondent no. 3 is said to have issued as the Chairman of the Corporation, the impugned order whereby he rescinded the petitioners order of appointment. While the order impugned is taken as the order of termination from service, its validity is assailed on the grounds of its being un-lawful and unconstitutional, having been passed without adherence to the legal and statutory provisions as no chance of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before the order was recorded which has had the effect of awarding the major punishment of determination from service without even the principles of natural justice having been complied with. The impugned order is labelled as arbitrary as no material was available or had been put forth before the Chairman to pass it. It is pleaded that the Chairman could be only the Minister-in-charge of the department, so also the impugned order issued by respondent no. 3 is without jurisdiction. ¢" "

5. Annulment of the impugned order is sought on the ground that it is unjustifiable, illegal and unconstitutional.

6. Respondent no. 2 alone has filed the counter, wherein it is pleaded that the Corporation being an autonomous corporate body does not fall within the purview of the definition of the State as envisaged in Article 12 of the Constitution and that being the case, it is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court. It is inter-alia pleaded by the respondent that it is disputed that the petitioner is a law graduate that the respondent no. 2 had no competance to make the appointment as the appointment to the most of litigation officer fell within the jurisdiction of the Board of Directors which alone had the authority to lay down the eligibility criteria for filling up of the posts of litigation officers. The appointment of the petitioner has come to be labelled as arbitrary and violative of all the established administrative procedures in the Corporation and thus incapable to confer any civil rights on the petitioner. It is also pleaded that having failed despite notice to produce his matriculation and other testimonials at the time of joining as such litigation officer his having joined the post of 23rd of April. 1993 cannot be said to be valid to confer any right on him. The wrong act of issuance of the order of appointment labelled as null and void is said to have been rectified by the issuance of the impugned order by respondent no. 3. It is pleaded that the appointment order being a nullify the petitioner cannot claim to have been substantively appointed on the post and cannot therefore be heard to say that the impugned order is unlawful and unconstitutional. Appointment of the Advisor, incharge of transport department is unquestionable and so it is pleaded that he could function as the Chairman of the Corp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document