MOHD. SHAFI Vs. STATE OF J AND K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For eighty-nine days, a temporary appointment as Laboratory Bearer, a post belonging to Class-IV, was given to the Appellant on July 28, 1992. This appointment continued until the Appellant filed, in 1994, a writ petition registered as SWP No. 295/1994. The purpose of filing this writ petition was to stall steps that were being taken for bringing to an end such temporary appointment. By an order passed on the said writ petition, the State, while was restrained from putting to an end such temporary appointment, was also directed to consider the claim of the Appellant for appointment. Subsequent consideration of such claim resulted in an appointment of the Appellant to a post of Peon, which is also a Class-IV post. Appellant then filed a writ petition registered as SWP No. 1030/2002. In that, he sought for and was granted treatment of his appointment as Laboratory Bearer instead of Peon. The Appellant tiled yet another writ petition registered as SWP No. 555/2006, wherein he sought his appointment as Laboratory Bearer to be treated from July 28, 1992, i.e., the date he was given temporary appointment as Laboratory Bearer. Writ petition has been dismissed by the judgment and order under appeal.

(2.) Temporary appointments are dealt with by Rules 14 and 15 of the applicable Rules. The said Rules make it absolutely clear that if temporary appointee is subsequently appointed permanently, he shall commence his probation from the date of his such subsequent appointment. Though Rule 15 authorises Minister In-charge to fix an earlier date for commencement of probation but that is confined only when the temporary appointment is in accordance with Rule 14, i.e., such appointment has not exceeded more than nine months in all.

(3.) In the instant case, before the Appellant had approached this Court for the first time by filling SWP No. 295/1994, he was permitted to continue his temporary appointment for a period in excess of nine months. Appellant in the last writ petition being SWP No. 555/2006 was seeking something which is not permissible in terms of Rules 14 and 15 of the applicable Rules, and, accordingly, learned Judge had no other option, but to dismiss the said writ petition which having been done by the judgment and order under appeal, according to us, is not interferable and as such, we refuse to admit the appeal.