MUFTI IMTIAZ Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 12th December, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 1516/2002 whereby the writ petition of the appellant has been dismissed. A few facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the appellant (writ petitioner) was appointed by respondent No. 1 vide Government order No. 91 - HME of 2002 dated 24th January, 2002 as Drug Inspector on consolidated salary of Rs.5000/ - per month for a period of one year or till such time the post is filled up under rules which ever is earlier. During the currency of this contractual engagement, the appellant approached the court by means of SWP NO. 1516/2002 seeking issuance of writ of mandamus to: i) Consider the appellant (writ petitioner) along with all eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Drug Inspector; ii) take into consideration the experience gained by the appellant while making the selection;and iii) prohibit the respondents from causing any interference in the service of the appellant till the selection process completed and also to release his salary uninterruptedly.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge after consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant has dismissed the writ petition vide the order under appeal, observing that no fundamental right of the appellant has been violated.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has challenged it on the grounds that the appellantâ„¢s appointment though is for one year, yet contains a stipulation for his continuation till selection have refereed the post to the Service Selection Board and the appellant has also applied for his selection. The selection has not so far been made. Therefore, the appellant in terms of the appointment order, should have been continued. He has also relied upon the judgment delivered by this Court in a batch of writ petitions filed by the ad -hoe employees titled Muhammad Sikandar v. State of J&K and others decided on 10th October, 2002, wherein a direction has been issued for continuation of the ad -hoe employees till the selection is made which has been directed to be made by ending June, 2003. It is also one of the grounds that the expression Ëœwhichever is earlierâ„¢ has no significance and therefore the pettioner was to be continued till the selection is made.