Appointments under SRO 384 of 2009 were for a limited period and did not entitle the appointees to preferential claim for regular appointment, and the challenge to the recruitment process through writ petitions was aimed at delaying the process.

JUDGEMENT

Rajnesh Oswal, J.

1. These intra-court appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 04.05.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants were disposed of. The three writ petitions, out of which two were filed subsequently after the decision of the learned Single Judge, have also been clubbed with these intra-court appeals. The issues involved in all these letters patent appeals as also the writ petitions are identical in nature and as such, they were heard together and therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 04.05.2018 has been impugned by the appellants on the ground inter alia that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the controversy, as though the appellants were appointed on academic arrangement basis in terms of SRO 384 of 2009 dated 14.12.2009, yet the nature of the appointment is not different from Consolidated or Contract workers, which makes them eligible to seek regularization against the posts held by them. The expression "academic engagement", is not applicable in the case of appellants as neither the appellants work on session to session basis nor the engagement can be circumscribed to a particular academic session, which in fact is a term pertaining to the employees, who are in the teaching faculty. It is also stated that the Full Bench of this court in LPA (SW) No. 158/96 in case titled "State of J&K versus Zareena Begum" has been pleased to hold that the nomenclature of the engagement would not make any material difference, if such employees are made to work regularly and in view of the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge that there is little difference between the engagement of the appellants and the other employees working on adhoc, contractual or consolidated basis, the appellants cannot be discriminated viz-a-viz employees engaged on adhoc, contractual or consolidated basis, insofar as the right to continue and seek regularization is concerned. It is also stated that the comparative analysis of SRO 255 dated 05.08.2003 i.e. J&K Contractual Appointment Rules, 2003 and SRO 384 of 2009 dated 14.12.2009 i.e. Medical & Dental Education (Appointment on Academic Arrangements Basis Rules), 2009 & SRO 202 of 2015 dated 30.06.2015 i.e. J&K Special Recruitment Rules, 2015 would lead to a conclusion that the terms of engagement, mode of selection, appointment and nature of duties of all these employees including those of the appellants, are identical in nature and as the appellants had been working for the last so many years, they are required to be regularized under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act of 2010.

Contentions of the Appellants/Petitioners:

3. Mr. Rahul Pant, learned senior counsel for some of the appellants argued that the distinction between employees working on contractual, adhoc or consolidated basis and those working on academic arrangement basis is artificial in nature and in fact, there is no real distinction between these employees except for the nomenclature. He further argued that the policy of regularization of contractual, consolidated or adhoc employees excluding the appellants is discriminatory in nature and in the alternative, he submitted that the applicants are in fact contractual employees notwithstanding the fact that they had been engaged on academic arrangement basis.

4. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel for some of the appellants too argued on similar lines as those of Mr. Rahul Pant, learned senior counsel. He further submitted that the appellants have been working for the last so many years and there appears to be no justification for not regularizing the services of the appellants, particularly when they are working on the posts those are not created for a temporary period or for a particular purpose.

5. Mr. Vikas Mangotra, learned counsel for some of the appellants reiterated the submissions made by