Page 1

LPA no.55/2023

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

…

LPA no.55/2023

J&K Entrepreneurship Development Institute

……. Appellant (s)

Through: Mr Alla Uddin Ganai, AAG

Versus

Union Territory of J&K and others

………Respondent(s)

Through: Mr R.A.Jan, Sr. Advocate

with Mr Aswad Attar, Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

O R D E R

10.04.2023

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgement and order

dated 27^th October 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing

a writ petition, being WP(C) no.988/2021 titled as Raheela Nazir and

others v. J&K EDI and others, and directing respondents to complete

the process of regularization of the services of petitioners against the

posts on which they have been appointed with effect from the date they

have successfully completed their two years contractual service with all

consequential benefits and pass appropriate order within a period of two

months.

2. We have heard learned counsel for parties. We have gone through the

impugned judgement and considered the matter.

3. Respondents herein (writ petitioners) had been appointed on different

posts on contractual basis for a period of one year on consolidated

salary. Their term was extended occasionally. Respondents claimed

S.no. 27

Cause List

Page 2

LPA no.55/2023

regularization of their services. They filed writ petition – WP(C)

no.988/2021. Reply thereto was filed by appellants. By impugned

judgement, the Writ Court, while allowing writ petition, directed

respondents – appellant herein to complete process of regularization of

services of writ petitioners against the posts on which they have been

appointed with effect from the date they have successfully completed

their two years contractual service with all consequential benefits and

pass appropriate order within a period of two months.

4. Assailing the impugned judgement, learned counsel appearing for

appellants has stated that learned Writ Court while passing impugned

judgement has not appreciated the fact that the relationship between

writ petitioners and appellants is governed by contract and both the

parties to the contract are bound by terms and conditions of contract

which clearly mentions that the services of petitioners are purely

contractual in nature and that regularization can only be considered

based on two important conditions, i.e., performance of petitioners and

the need of the Institute.

5. While giving our thoughtful consideration to the case in hand, the

whole issue revolves around regularization of services of writ

petitioners.

6. When impugned judgement is analysed in the backdrop of submissions

made by learned counsel for appellants, it is vividly conspicuous that

the Writ Court has given comprehensive, lucid and eloquent judgement.

The Writ Court has discussed and set at rest all facets of the matter.

7. Perusal of the impugned judgement reveals that the Writ Court has

found that appellant-Institute had processed the case of writ petitioners

Page 3

LPA no.55/2023

for regularization and submitted it to Administrative Department. It

was also found that there was no need to create the posts for

regularization of services of writ petitioners as the posts were already

available in respondent-Institute. It was also found by the Writ Court

that Government Order no.462-JK (GAD) of 2022 dated 21^st April 2022

was not impinging upon petitioners’ right of regularization as writ

petitioners had been appointed against available posts and had

successfully completed their contractual term.

8. It is also gatherable from the record on the file that writ petitioners had

been appointed only after putting them to the process of selection

initiated by appellants in pursuance of advertisement notices issued in

this regard. Writ petitioners are not backdoor appointees as they