SYED RAFIQ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY medium of a CMP the respondents have sought vacation of an ad interim direction accorded in favour of the petitioner on 10/12/1998. The reply filed in opposition thereto is adopted as rejoinder by petitioners counsel. The pleadings being complete it will be appropriate to take up the main petition for disposal which course is opted by consent of LC for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner came on the establishment of the respondents as Assistant Manager vide order No. JKHPC/82/p8A/l767 -72 dated 16/06/1982. He was promoted by order No. 9 PER of 1994 dated 15/12/1994 to the post of Deputy Manager subsequently designated as Manager vide Order No. 1 PER of 1996 dated 03.02.1996. To establish suitability for the post of General Manager, the petitioner has appended ad hoc orders of his appointment on the posts of Lecturer in Anantnag College, Technical Officer in the Industries Department, besides the order positioning him as District Manager for a brief spell (refer to annexures P1, P2 & P3 to the writ petition). What bearing these orders have on the issues involved in the writ petition in view of the fact that the petitioner does not stake claim for regularisation on any of these posts appearing counsel for the petitioner has no answer yet he claimed entitlement of the petitioner for regularisation on the strength of judicial pronouncement reported In 1994 SLJ 165 titled Vijay Kumar v. State. Perusal of the judgement reveals that there was an order of appointment in favour of the petitioner therein. Terms of the said order were observed in breach consequently interference by the Court. Reliance is also placed on Secretary Cum Chief Engineer Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma Ors. (1998) 5 Supreme Court cases 87. It was a case of a senior most in -service employee who had continued for more than ten years on a higher post and was the only person available for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer I, therefore, a direction for his consideration against the post. No doubt judicial pronouncements have to apply but in what circumstances, guidance is readily available from the judgement of the apex Court in Regional Manager v. Pawan Kumar, AIR 1976 SC 1766 para 7, wherein the Court has held : "7... It is the rule deducible from the applications of law to the facts and circumstances of a case which constitutes its ratio decidendi and not some conclusion based upon facts which may appear to be similar. One additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts."

(3.) THE settled law being that ratio decidendi is applicable where facts are similar, therefore, similarity of facts has to be ascertained before applying the law. Whether the facts are similar to the judgements relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner needs to be appreciated in the light of the events and circumstances of the case in hand. The petitioner was assigned the control of the apple juice plant vide order No.68 PER of 1998 dated 24.07.1998 forming annexure v8 to the CMP No. 3021/2001 which may be extended : "Syed Rafiq Ahmad, Manager zonal office Sopore ordered to look after the working of Apple Juice Plant Sopore additionally, shall henceforth look after the work of Apple Juice Plant Sopore exclusively. The field work at Sopore Zone shall be looked after by Mr. Muhammad Ramzan Bhat, Deputy Manager Zonal Office Sopore.