1. This is a case where unfairness is writ large in administering justice. After appointing petitioner as helper by invoking SRO 64 of 1994 on 1-5-1995. Said appointment order has been cancelled on 9-9-1995 by the same officer. Perusal of the order reveals that petitioner came to be appointed as helper after relaxing age bar by the Administrative Department by invoking SRO 64 of 1994. The order speaks that the petitioner had continuously worked for seven years as on 30-3-1994 and as a result of which, he became eligible for regularization, which was done in pursuant to the aforesaid order. The said order gets cancelled within three months without disclosing reasons for the same. It is this order, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

2. The positive case set out by the petitioner is that he was appointed as Daily Wager prior to 1994 and came to be regularized on 1-5-1995 and appointed as helper. The said order of appointment was cancelled by respondent -1. The basis for cancellation of order dated 1-5-1995, is provided by communication dated 23-8-1985 issued by Regional Director, Social Forestry Project in which he states that petitioners name has been wrongly included in the list and instead name of one Ramesh Lal should have been shown in the list of regularized employees. According to the statement showing the names of Casual Labours / Daily Rated Workers issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kathua, the petitioner is stated to be appointed in the year 1985 and continued to serve the department till 1994. Vide another communication dated 29-7-1994, addressed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kathua to the Regional Director, Social Forestry Project, Jammu, it has been stated that petitioners order of cancellation was not based on correct facts. It is further revealed that petitioner continued to work with the department till 29-7-2004. Aforesaid Communication manifestly states that for undisclosed reasons and by concocting a false report against the petitioner, his order of termination was managed by the respondents.

3. On the other hand, the respondents stated that petitioner on his own showing stated that he was engaged as Daily Wager in the year 1995-96, as such was not entitled to regularization on 5-5-1995. In view of the stand taken by the respondent, petitioner has no cause to agitate before the court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has in his petition stated that he stood appointed in the year 1995-96. However, looking to the contemporaneous record produced by the respondent, he has been appointed as Casual Labour in the year 1985-86, as is revealed from the statement filed by the respondents indicating the names of Casual Labours/ Daily Rated Workers in which the petitioner figures at serial no. 101 and his date of appointment is shown in the year 1985. While analyzing the fact and the stand of the respondents, it can safely be stated that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1985 and not in 1995 as stated by him in the writ petition. This, in my opinion, was a typographical error. Even if assuming but not admitting that it is not a typographical error, the order impugned should have reflected that the petitioner was not eligible for regularization as he was appointed only in the year 1985. The order does not say so. As a matter of fact, no reason has been disclosed as to why the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled. The respondents are aware that the petitioner stood appointed in the year 1985 and not in 1995 as un-intentionally mentioned by the petitioner in his petition. This argument would not prevail. Coming to the second question, as to whether the petitioner was entitled to be regularized, SRO 64 of 1994 provided regularization of Daily Rated Workers, provided he has completed seven years of service. The only eligibility is that he should have continuous service. There is no other requirement to be fulfilled by the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document