M J SAPROO Vs. NASEEMA SHORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Rules, 1999 has been preferred by Mr. M. J. Saproo (Designer) to challenge Judgment dated 02.04.2007, rendered by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of petitioner-respondent No. 1 Naseema Shora. The writ petitioner respondent succeeded in persuading the learned Single Judge for quashing order dated 29.12.2008 (Annexure G), which was the subject matter of challenge at her instance. The seniority of the writ petitioner-respondent in the cadre of Designer was disturbed by passing the aforesaid order by government. The order was passed at her back without any notice which has given the appellant a date earlier to the date of promotion of the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1.

(2.) To put the controversy in its proper perspective few facts may first be noticed. The writ petitioner-respondent was temporarily appointed against the post of Assistant Designer by the Director Handicrafts, J&K Government respondent No. 3 for a period of three months in terms of order No. 1675-HD of 1984 dated 21.05.1984. Despite expiry of three months period, she was allowed to continue on the post by virtue of various orders issued on 04.09.1984, 07.12.1984, 06.06.1985, 06.07.1985 and 12.08.1985. On 30.01.1987, in continuation of the aforesaid order, she was appointed against the post of Designer for a period of three months or till the regular selection was made by the Recruitment Board. The aforesaid order was further extended by an order dated 22.06.1987 and 16.03.1988. She preferred SWP No. 1310 of 1988 with a prayer that she be permitted to continue on the post of Designer till the same is filled up on substantive basis. The High Court issued interim directions for her continuation till the appointments were to be made on regular basis. However, the respondent did not comply with those directions and adjusted her against the post of Potter for a period of two months vide order dated 05.08.1988.

(3.) A significant development took place in the year 1989 when the Government issued order on 11.09.1989 directing that all adhoc appointments to non-Gazetted posts recruited from time to time upto 29.12.1988 were to be treated as appointments made on regular basis on probation with effect from the date of the order, provided such employees were still in service. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the Government issued a consequential order No. 1118-HD of 1989 dated 31.10.1989 according approval to the appointment of the petitioner-respondent No. 1 against the post of Designer. In the order, it was also directed that her appointment against the post of Designer was to be treated to be made on regular basis with effect from 11.09.1989. On 11.04.1997, an order was passed to the effect that she has completed her period of probation against the post of Designer while working in the School of designer satisfactorily. It is, thus, clear that her effective date of appointment to the substantive post of Designer came to be concluded as 11.09.1989 and this order has remained intact till date. At no stage, this order has been challenged by the appellant-respondent or any other employee of the department.