PANKAJ MITHAL,J. - (1.)The State of Jammu and Kashmir (now Union Territory), the Transport Commissioner and the Regional Transport Officer, Kathua have together preferred this letters patent appeal against the judgment and order dtd. 22/11/2018 passed by the writ court allowing SWP No. 2319/2015, Abdul Majid and others v. State of J&K and others, holding the petitioners therein entitled to regularization of services in terms of Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 (for short 'the Act').
(2.)Learned counsel for the State appellants submits that the court is not justified in holding the petitioners/respondents to be entitled for regularization as the aforesaid Act was not applicable to them. They were being paid salary out of the 'Contingent Fund' and employees drawing salary from contingent fund are not entitled for regularization under the Act. Moreover, the petitioners/respondents were not engaged against any clear vacancy which is a prerequisite for seeking regularization in services. It is also submitted that in view of the Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1806, no appointment is permissible in law de hors the rules or the process of selection envisaged by constitutional scheme and as such appointment so made are not required to be regularized.
(3.)Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/respondents submits that the petitioners/respondents fulfill all the necessary conditions for the regularization of services under the aforesaid Act. The appointment of the petitioners/respondents was against the clear vacancies and as such they could not have been denied regularization on the aforesaid count. Accordingly, the writ court has rightly quashed the consideration order rejecting the claim of the petitioners/respondents. The aforesaid Act is the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) and as such any regularization within framework of the aforesaid Act is not illegal or against the constitutional mandate. The petitioners/respondents on the date of their initial engagement were qualified and eligible for appointment and it is no one's case that their appointment was de hors the rules or the process prescribed.