STATE OF J&K Vs. BHARAT BHUSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 360 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Condonation application stands disposed of. LPASW No. 81/2010

(2.) THE instant appeal preferred under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment and order dated 28.5.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court which is based on the statement made by the learned Deputy Advocate General to the effect that the services of writ petitioners -respondents deserved to be regularized with effect from the date their juniors were regularized. On the basis of the aforesaid statement the learned Single Judge has issued directions to the appellants to pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date a copy of that order was presented to the appellants. It would be pertinent to extract the impugned order which reads thus: -

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Gagan Basotra, learned senior Additional Advocate General, who has not been able to explain how an appeal against such an order would be competent. It is obvious no Letters Patent would lie against an order which is based on the statement of the State counsel. In the present case, this is what exactly happened. Then how can such a party be aggrieved by such an order. It is patently clear the appeal against an order based on the statement made by the administrative head of the Department through the Deputy Advocate General cannot be wriggled out. The appeal is wholly without merit and the same is dismissed.