HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

Reserved on: 22.09.2022

Pronounced on: 27.10.2022

WP(C)No.988/2021

CM No. 3189/2021

CM No. 5312/2022

Raheela Nazir and ors

...Petitioner(s)

Through:- Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Advocate

With Mr. Muzaffar Nabi Lone, Advocate.

V/s

J&K EDI and others

...Respondent(s)

Through:- Mr. Raies din Ganai, Dy. A. G.

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1.

Pursuant to various advertisement notifications issued by the

respondent No.1 in the years 2017 and 2018, the petitioners came to be

appointed as Assistant Faculty, Associate Project Managers, Office

Associates, Stenographers, Plumbers, Electricians and Drivers on

contractual basis for a period of one year on consolidated salary. The

appointment was initially for a period of one year and terminable with a

notice period of one month from either side. The term of contractual

appointment of the petitioners was extended from time to time by the

respondent No.1 by issuing formal orders of extension. The petitioners

claim that they having rendered more than two years service, are entitled to

their regularization in view of the decision taken by the Governing Body of

2

WP (C) No. 988/2021

respondent No.1 in its meeting held on 18-12-2007. The fourth decision

taken in the aforesaid meeting is strongly relied upon by the petitioners to

contend that, after completion of initial contractual period of two years,

right has accrued to the petitioners to have their contractual service

regularized.

2.

With a view to confer such benefit of the policy decision upon the

petitioners and others, the respondent No.1 had called upon all the

contractual appointees to submit their Appraisal Reports for previous years

duly endorsed by their immediate officer. It is the further case of the

petitioners that, after the receipt of the Appraisal Reports of the petitioners

the case was also processed further for regularization. Since no decision

has been taken by the respondents to regularize the services of the

petitioners, as such, the petitioners are left with no option but to invoke the

extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court to seek a direction to the

respondents to regularize their services against the posts they have been

appointed with effect from the date of completion of their two years

successful contractual service.

3.

The petitioners have also placed on record certain documents to

substantiate their plea that out of 165 positions of different level, 116

employees have already been regularized after completion of mandatory

period of two years service and it is only the petitioners who have been left

out despite sufficient number of vacant posts available with respondent

No.1. The petitioners claim that they constitute a single class with those

3

WP (C) No. 988/2021

contractual employees who have been regularized after completion of their

two years service and, therefore, they cannot be discriminated.

4.

On being put on notice, respondents have entered appearance

through Mr. Rais-ud-Din Ganai, Deputy Advocate General, who has filed

two sets of objections, one on behalf of respondent No.1 and another on

behalf of respondent No.2.

5.

In the objections filed by respondent No.1 (JKEDI), the claim of the

petitioners for regularization is contested on the ground that the decision of

the Governing Body of the respondent No.1 relied upon by the petitioners

is conditional and the regularization of the contra