SUSHEELA AZIZ Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts which are not in dispute are that the appellant came to be appointed against the vacancy of a teacher which arose when one Miss Nuzhat Parveen proceeded on leave. Later on the appellant came to be adjusted against another leave vacancy. This was again a vacancy which arose on account of the fact that one Rifat Fazili had proceeded on long leave. The appellant is continuing in service. She sought regularisation. Her plea was that in terms of Government Order No. 1220 -GAD of 1989 dated 11th September 1989 all adhoc appointments were supposed to be regularised. Accordingly to the appellant the Government orders does not exclude an employee who had been appointed against leave vacancy. It makes use of the word Ëœadhocâ„¢ appointment only. Accordingly to the learned Counsel for the appellant, adhoc appointee would also include such an appointee who came to be appointed against leave vacancy. This argument did not find favour with the Learned Single Judge and the writ petition was dismissed. This LPA has been filed against the said order of the Learned Single Judge.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that this court in two decisions has concluded that when a person has continued to work for a long period against long leave arrangements, such an appointee is entitled to regularisation and the benefits of government order no. 1220 -GAD of 1989 dated 11th September, 1989 can be given to such an employee. One Such decision is reported as Miss Sudha Gupta Vs. State of J&K & Others. KLJ 1996 page 244. This decision deals with the prosecution that the Government order not make any differentiation between adhoc appointees and appointees continued on leave arrangements for long periods. Similar view has been expressed by another learned Single Judge of this Court in Rita Sharma Vs. State 1999 SLJ 18. We are of the view that the point put across by the Learned Counsel has merit.

(3.) OTHERWISE also, the perusal of the Government order makes it apparant that it does not exclude an appointee who has been appointed on long leave vacancy. All that it referes is adhoc appointes leave arrangements are also adhoc appointments. Therefore, the view expressed by the Learned Single Judge can not be sustained.