GHULAM HASSAN BHAT Vs. STATE OF J AND K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of SWP No. 1317/1993, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to allow him to continue against class IV post in Govt. High School Purnewa, Budgam and not to disturb the petitioner from his place of posting. He further seeks release of his and to regularise his services. In SWP No. 50 / 1999, petitioner seeks that his services be regularised and the treatment be extended to him which has been extended to Abdul Hamid Raina and Ab. Hamid Parray by regularising their services under order No. CEO /SWP / 148 / 4325-29 dated 16-11-96 who were similarly situated with him. The petitioner came to be appointed against class IV vacancy in the Education Department for a period of 60 days by the Deputy Commissioner, Budgam vide his order dated 13-5-1993. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was adjusted by the District Education Officer, Budgam vide his order dated 26-5-1993 in High School Parnew. Petitioner has been permitted to continue by interim direction dated 19-7-1993 in writ petition No. 1317 / 1993 and is continuing as such. The petitioner seeks regularisation of his services on the ground that he is continuing till date and similarly situated person s services have been regularised and the petitioner is also entitled to the same treatment, in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Mr. Qadri, learned Sr. AAG in rebutttal has submitted that the services of the petitioner cannot be regularised as his appointment is abinitio bad and without jurisdiction. The petitioner came to be appointed by the Dy. Commissioner, Budgam in the Department of Education who has no jurisdiction as he is not the appointing authority under the service rules governing the services of the Education Department. His further plea is that the appointment of the petitioner was for a fixed term of sixty days and has come to an end by efflux of time. Petitioner being continuing on the strength of the court order has no right to seek continuation or regularisation. His another submission is that similar treatment also cannot be granted to the petitioner unless it is made out that the order on the basis of which regularisation is being sought is legally valid and sustainable in law.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. The appointment of the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner, Budgam, cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the Deputy Commissioner is not the appointing authority under the rules governing the service. The statutory power of appointment of a class IV employee in the Education Department is vested with the District Education Officer. The petitioner has been permitted to continue by interim order of the court. His continuation on the basis of the court order does not vest any right in him to seek regularisation in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 1998 (8) SCC Page 529, holding that :