IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Wasim Sadiq Nargal, J.
Sayma Nazir D/o Nazir Ahmad Hajini - Appellant
Vs.
State of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. - Respondent
SWP 1419 of 2012 IA(1/2012[2348 of 2012]), CM (8389 of 2021)
Decided On : 18-12-2023
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein the petitioner has called in question the advertisement notice dated 05.07.2012, with a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Vocational Instructor till such time the post is filled on substantive basis. Besides, the petitioner is seeking direction against the respondents to release salary and other benefits in favour of the petitioner.
2. With a view to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant petition, it would be appropriate to give factual background of the instant case.
3. That, in terms of the advertisement notice dated 03.10.2011, applications were invited from the eligible candidates for the academic arrangements in different Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) of Kashmir Division for the academic session 2011-12 with fixed honorarium of Rs.4000/- per month. Besides other posts, the applications in terms of the aforesaid advertisement notice, the post of Vocational Instructor (COPA) was also invited.
4. The petitioner applied for selection and was appointed to the post of Vocational Instructor and accordingly, in terms of the order dated 05.11.2012, the petitioner came to be engaged in the academic arrangement to run the COPA Trade at ITI Sopore. Thereafter, on 05.07.2012 the respondents issued advertisement notice where under they again invited applications from eligible candidates for temporary engagement in academic arrangement in the ITI’s of Kashimir Division for conducting training activities including trade of COPA for the academic session 2012-23 or till the regular arrangement is made in accordance with the rules on the recommendations of the J&K Services Selection Board which is earlier.
5. The petitioner has challenged the advertisement notice dated 05.07.2012 on the following grounds:
(b) That it not in the advertisement notice dated 03.10.2011, but in the advertisement notice 05.07.2012, the respondents have clearly stated that the academic arrangement for the academic session 2012.13 shall hold good till regular arrangements are made in accordance with rules, on the recommendations of the Service Selection Board. It is thus clear that any one appointed in terms of the advertisement notice dated 03.10.2011 will have to continue on the post till such time, regular arrangement is made by the respondents on the recommendations of the service selection Board. The petitioner respectfully submit that in her case also, the respondents have to follow the same yardstick and they have to allow the petitioner to continue on the post till such time regular arrangement is made on the basis of the recommendations of the Service Selection Board. Since by issuing the advertisement notice dated 05.07.2012, the respondents are going to displace the petitioner from the post held by her in an illegal, improper and unconstitutional manner, therefore, the advertisement notice dated 05.07
State of J&K and Ors. vs. Afshan Majid and Ors.
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others
Satheedevi Vs Prasanna and Anr.
P.K. Unni v. Nirmala Industries, (1990) SCR 482, 488 : AIR 1990 SC 933
Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay
Smt Hira Devi v. District Board, Shahjahanpur, 1952 SCR 1122, 1131 : AIR 1952 SC 362
Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar, 1953 SCR 533, 545 : AIR 1953 SC 148
Gujarat Streel Tubes Ltd. V. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha
W. Naravanaswami v. G. Punnerselvam, (1973) SCR 172, 182 : AIR 1972 SC 2284
N. S. Vardachari v. G. Vasantha Pai
Union of India v. Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth
Kanai Lal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan
Shyam Kishori Devi v. Patna Municipal Corporation
Dr. Kishore Vs. State of Maharashtra
State of UP v. Raj Karan Singh (1998) 8 SCC 529
Temporary or contractual engagements in academic arrangements do not confer rights for continuation beyond the specified term, and interim court orders do not establish permanent employment rights.
An ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee. They can only be replaced by a candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed.
Contractual employees cannot be replaced without adhering to established recruitment procedures, ensuring their rights under public employment principles.
Temporary employees cannot be replaced by other temporary appointees; regularization must follow due process ensuring fairness and equality in employment.
The court recognized the right of the State to appoint persons on temporary basis to meet its exigencies, and held that the failure of the ATTC to maintain the student to lecturer ratio and the petit....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.