MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, J. - (1.)THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13 -8 -2007 of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant.
(2.)LEARNED counsel for the appellant argued that the petitioner has worked for a pretty long time i.e. at least for 16 years till the passing of the impugned order, as such, she was entitled to regularization. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported as Suheela Aziz Vs. State of J&K & ors, 2003 (1) SLJ 101. His further submission is that the writ court has fallen in error in dismissing the writ petition.
(3.)ADMITTEDLY , the appellant came to be engaged vide order dated 1 -5 -1991 against the leave arrangement of respondent no. 5, for a period of 89 days, which was extended subsequently vide order dated 29 -6 -1991 with one days break after every spell of 89 days. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner questioned one days break by the medium of SWP No. 108/1992. She was allowed to continue till the actual incumbent resumes his duties in terms of the interim direction dated 7 -5 -1992.
Respondent no. 5 after availing the leave, joined back his services and the respondent no. 2 allowed him to resume his duties vide order No. 1188 -DSEK of 2002 dated 11 -4 -2002. Petitioner questioned the said order firstly by the medium of a suit before Munsiff Tangmarg, who by virtue of an interim order commanded Zonal Education Officer, Kunzar to allow the petitioner to continue and not to allow respondent no. 5 to resume his duties and by the medium of writ petition bearing SWP No. 701/2002. Respondent no. 5 also filed SWP No. 639/2002.