Mir Nassar Ullah vs J&K SFC

Mr. Ali Mohammad Magrey, J. - The instant appeal challenges the legality of order dated 13th October, 2015, passed in a writ petition being

SWP No. 1295/2015, for short 'impugned order', dismissing the writ petition of appellants/petitioners.

Before adverting to the grounds of challenge to the impugned order, it is thought proper to refer to the dispute, in brief, in the first instance.

Appellants/petitioners are stated to have been engaged as Assistant Managers in the Respondent Corporation for a period of six months.

Pursuant to the orders of engagement, appellants/ petitioners joined and discharged their duties for the term specified. Thereafter, Respondent

Corporation issued an Order No. PS/26/15-981, dated 18th March, 2015, ceasing various orders issued from time to time including the one that

engaged appellants/petitioners as Assistant Managers.

The appellants/petitioners challenged the said order dated 18th March, 2015, by filing a writ petition, SWP No. 1295/2015, which upon

consideration by the Writ Court has been dismissed vide order dated October 13, 2015. Appellants/ petitioners feeling aggrieved have filed the

instant appeal seeking reversal of Writ Court order.

Precisely the ground taken for challenging the impugned Judgment is that the Writ Court did not appreciate the manner in which the order dated

18th March, 2015, was issued.

The Writ Court, in terms of impugned judgment, has dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that order impugned in the writ petition has

been issued on well founded reasons and the appellants/petitioners have discharged their duty for the term they were appointed.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and considered the matter.

Learned counsel for appellants submits that the order of engagement of appellants carries a promise for regularization on satisfactory

performance of duties which has not been given any regard while issuing the order of disengagement. Therefore, it is contended that the Writ Court

has not made any mention of this aspect, which renders the impugned judgment unsustainable under law. He prays that impugned judgment be set

aside and writ petition of the petitioners be allowed.

Mr. Tasaduq H. Khawja, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the impugned judgment

and the Writ Court has appreciated the controversy in its true perspective, therefore, same needs to be left uninterfered. He submits that the

contention of having extended a promise of regularization to appellants/ petitioners in their engagement order does not create any right, muchless an

enforceable right in favour of appellants/petitioners to insist upon their continuance.

Considered the submissions made and went through the entire material made available.

We do not see any ground having been made out to convince the court to interfere with the impugned Judgment. The instant LAP does not in

any way carve out a case that may lend support to the submissions made by the learned counsel for appellant. In fact, we see the LPA as nothing

but an attempt to prolong the unnecessary litigation. The impugned judgment, in the circumstances, is upheld However, respondents are directed to

fill up the posts in accordance with the Rules. The LPA is dismissed as being meritless. However, there shall, however, be no order as to costs.