IRSHADA BANOO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court in the year 1999 for quashing the Order No. 122-Ind of 1998 dated 27.03.1998 passed by Respondent No. 1 with a further relief of mandamus commanding the Respondents to regularize her services against the post of Knitting Instructor as has been done in the case of Respondent No. 3. In the alternative, the Petitioner has prayed for a direction commanding the Respondents to regularize her services against the post of Knitting Instructor with effect from 01.04.1994 on the grounds taken in the writ petition.

(2.) It appears that the Petitioner was engaged as Knitting Instructor on daily wage basis and her services came to be regularized against the post of Helper vide Order No. 53 - E of 1995 dated 18.03.1995 (Annexure Al to the writ petition). The Petitioner accepted the said order and discharged her duties as Helper till filing of the writ petition. Respondents 3 & 4, Parveena Malik & Shahida Sofi filed writ petitions before this Court and obtained interim relief whereby the Respondents were directed to consider their cases for regularization against the posts of Knitting Instructors. Furthermore, the writ Petitioner herein filed representation for grant of similar relief as was granted in favour of Respondents 3 & 4 but Respondents have not considered the representation which constrained her to file the writ petition on hand. The Respondents have resisted the writ petition on the ground that the post of Knitting Instructor is a direct recruitment post and has to be referred to SSRB for selection. It is further contended that the Petitioner cannot claim equality on the basis of illegalities committed by the Respondents. Article 14 of the Constitution mandates positive concept and not negative. It is further averred by the Respondents that services of the Petitioner came to be regularized as Helper in the year 1995 and she accepted her position for a period of four years and thereafter invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court which she cannot do now by making a U-turn.

(3.) Mr. Qayoom while addressing the arguments confined his relief to the extent of writ of mandamus and prayed that the official Respondents be directed to consider the case of the Petitioner keeping in view the relief granted in favour of Respondents 3 & 4. In short Mr. Qayoom has claimed parity and equality as per mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.