RAM MURTI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide Government Order No. 526/HE of 1983 dated 12.10.1983, petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Education on adhoc basis in Degree College Kathua against the vacancy caused due to reversion of Sh. Bhagat Bushan to School Department. The said appointment order provided that same shall be valid only for six months or till the selection is made by the Public Service Commission or till the original incumbent rejoins whichever is earlier. Petitioner was ordered to be relieved for taking up the assignments of the College Lecturer by the Director School Education, Jammu vide Order dated 20.10.1983. Petitioner was relieved and was permitted to join on 25.04.1984 as Lecturer. Thereafter, vide order No. 54 dated 28.05.1987, the Director School Education, Jammu issued sanction to the exchange of posts of Master grade held by the petitioner and petitioner was posted in Government College of Education, Jammu. Petitioner made a representation to the Government through Commissioner/Secretary Higher Education Department Jammu and Kashmir Government Civil Secretariat, Jammu praying therein that she be appointed/absorbed as Lecturer in the State Higher Education Department. When the claim of the petitioners for regularization of her services did not bear any fruit, she was constrained to file this petition.

(2.) On notice issued, respondents have filed objections/reply affidavit. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considered the matter.

(3.) Mr. Johal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in almost identical circumstances respondents have regularized the services of one Om Prakash Sharma, petitioner in W.P. No. 222/83 decided on 05.10.1988, whereas petitioner has been subjected to invidious discrimination. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner, during the pendency of this writ petition, superannuated from service and her claim for regularization is to be considered only for payment of post retiral benefits. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner all along worked as Lecturer in the Higher Education Department and the denial of regularization of service violated mandate contained in Articles 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submitted that in the earlier round of litigation petitioner had not sought regularization of her service as Lecturer, but had prayed for grant of relaxation in her upper age limit, so as to make her eligible for seeking consideration for being selected and appointed as Lecturer as a candidate in the direct recruitment process. Learned counsel submitted that along with objections/reply affidavit, Government order placed on record does not pertain to the claim of the petitioner for regularization of service but her claim for relaxation of upper age limit. Learned counsel further submitted that respondents can be directed to refer the case the petitioner to PSC/DPC and the authorities concerned be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the manner same was considered in the case of Om Prakash Sharma and his services were regularized as Lecturer.