NIKHIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector (Excise) vide -order No. 19 -Adm of 1984 dt. 20.4.1984 by Excise Commissioner J&K. temporarily against the vacancy caused due to the suspension of Bodh Raj, Sub Inspector (Excise). That suspension arrangement continued up to June 7, 1984 He was then again on June 19,1984, appointed as Sub Inspector (Excise) by the Excise Commissioner J&K against another suspension arrangement of shri Baldev Raj, which arrangement continued up to September 26,1984. On that very date he was again appointed as Sub Inspector (Excise) in another suspension case of Charan Dass. Sub Inspector (Excise), which arrangement continued up to December 31, 1984. When he was appointed as Sub -Inspector â„¢Excise) in another suspension arrangement of Sh. Virender Kumar. That suspension arrangement was still continuing when on February 19, 1985, the Excise Commissioner J&K appointed the petitioner temporarily on adhoc basis for a period of three months against available vacancy. The said order was then modified by another order No. 111/Adm of 1985 dt. 17.4.1985 extending the period of his adhoc appointment from three months to six months which too against the clear vacancy. On September 24, 1985, another order was issued by deputy excise commissioner (Executive) Jammu appointing the petitioner as Sub Inspector (Excise) in the suspension arrangement of Mohan Singh, Sub Inspector. After that the excise commissioner under his letter No. 4772/Adm of 1986 dated 15.1.1986 sent a communication to the Commissioner cum -Secretary Finance Department, J&K, Jammu, seeking regularisation of the appointment of petitioner as Sub Inspector (Excise) against the available vacancy, which did, not materialise and the Department filled in two vacancies of the sub inspector (Excise) without any advertisement or even reference to Selection Board.

(2.) PETITIONERS case is that his employment from April 20, 1984 till May 25, 1988 continued when order No.86/RSJ dt. 25.5.1988 was issued terminating his services as a consequence of which he was relieved on that very date. He has challenged that order being mala fide depriving him of his valuable right and he has prayed for quashing the same and further for issuing direction to re -induct him against the post of Sub Inspector (Excise) and further to hold him to be in continuous service without any interruption.

(3.) COUNTER was not filed by the respondents despite so many opportunities afforded and preemptory order passed in this regard on March 29, 1989, by this Court. Later on, an application CMP No. 704/89 was filed on behalf of the respondents on October 11, 1989, for condoning the delay and placing the counter on record, which application was dismissed vide order of this court dt. October 13.1989. In view of this order of the court, the counter filed on behalf of the respondents cannot be considered.