(1.) HEARD . Writ petition is admitted to hearing. LC for the respondents has adopted the objections filed by him in opposition to the admissibility of the writ petition as counter. In this backdrop, writ petition is taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties. The engagement of respondents 7 & 8 made on daily wage basis for a period of 89 days by debit to the lump sum proviso for temporary staff is challenged by medium of this writ petition. It is gathered from the text of the order that the engagement is purely on daily wage basis that too for a specific period. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently disputed the bona fides of the Kashmir University (for short respondent) contending that it is a mode of back door entry which is likely to be followed by regularisation. The apprehension is repelled by a communication bearing No. F (Casual -Apptts) Admn/KU/001 dated 11 -05 -2001 and No. F (Casual -Apptts) Adm/UK/08 dated 14 -05 -2001 placed before the Court which is taken on record. It depicts that the engagement of the private respondents 7 & 8 has not been extended beyond the period stipulated in the order of their first engagement and they are not continuing anymore. Obviously, the relief of certiorari has become infructuous and calls for no adjudication.
(2.) IT is next contended that the petitioners having worked as casual labourers with the respondent for a couple of years approached this Court in the year 1998 through writ petition No. 124/98 which was decided on 13 -02 -1998 directing the respondent inter alia to allow the petitioners to continue provided their services were required. The stand of the respondent is that the petitioners were disengaged on 14 -01 -1998 that is prior to the judgment aforementioned. It is seen from the judgment that it was not a case where the petitioners were disengaged by a similar arrangement. The judgment of the court entitles the petitioners to continue on need basis. There being nothing to indicate that similar arrangement was repeated in place of the petitioners, an inference can be safely drawn that there was no need for their continuation. This being the factual position the respondent cannot be said to have led into error. Dealing with the second part of the judgment which commands the respondents to consider the petitioners for permanent absorption, it is relevant to refer to the stand taken in reply filed wherein respondent has undertaken to accord consideration to the petitioners when process for permanent appointment is initiated. In the backdrop of factual matrix aforementioned, it is not possible to hold the respondent guilty of observing the judgment of this court in breach.
(3.) IT was also contended by Mr. A. Haqani that the petitioners have a right of continuation on the strength of judgment of apex court in Central Bank of India Vs. S. Satyam reported in AIR 1996 Sc 2526. The judgment deals with the claim of workman in terms of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 whereas in the writ petition in hand the petitioners have not claimed to be the workmen within the ambit of the said Act. Moreso, the point is being raised without being pleaded, so much so, no motion is laid for amendment even, therefore, it is not possible to grant the relief on a ground not pleaded. How has the apex court dealt with a case where something was urged beyond the written pleadings, reference to case S.S. Sharma Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1981 SC 588 para 6 becomes relevant in which it was held: