MOHD ASHRAF SHANTHU Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise from the same judgment and order of the learned Single Judge and, accordingly, they were heard together.

(2.) THE dispute relates to seniority between the appellants on the one side and private respondents on the other side. The private respondents, five in number, filed the connected writ petitions being SWP nos. 235 and 236 of 1983, 1037 of 1985, 1007 of 1985 and 1102 of 1986 for quashing certain orders by which appellant Muhammad Ashraf Shanthu and others were either promoted or temporarily posted on officiating basis as Chief Inspectors in the Department of Food and Supplies, impleading them as respondents. By the time the writ petitions came to be disposed of, the respondents, except Muhammad Ashraf Shanthu, had superannuated from service. Thus he alone preferred appeal, LPA No. 20 of 2003. The other appellant, Iftikhar Ahmad Banday, had not been made party / respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge impinging on his seniority vis - -vis the writ petitioners, he sought leave to appeal, and leave having been granted vide order dated 19.2.2003, filed the appeal i. e. LPA No. 139 of 2002.

(3.) ACCORDING to the appellants the private respondents applied for appointment pursuant to the said advertisement dated 11th May, 1973 but failed. However, they were not only continued on the post but vide order dated 7th October, 1977 also "deemed to have been appointed as regular Tehsil Supply Officer". According to the private respondents, on the other hand, selection process initiated by advertisement dated 11th May, 1973 was never finalized and the respondents kept waiting for the result. Considering the prejudice, which the respondents had suffered on account of the non -finalization of the selection process, even though they continued in the employment and performed the duties and functions of the post, a decision was taken to regularize their services ("deemed to have been appointed") on the post of Tehsil Supply Officer. The appellants have tried to find fault with the manner in which the respondents came to be appointed; the respondents too have pointed out loopholes in the appellants case. According to them, their selection by the Recruitment Board was a farce inasmuch as only one post each was referred to the Board against which only one candidate i.e. the concerned appellant was considered and recommended for appointment. A common feature of the cases of both appellants and respondents, as would appear from the facts stated hereinabove, is that both sides were initially appointed on ad hoc basis but later regularized; the difference being that whereas ad hoc appointment of the appellants was replaced by regular appointment pursuant to the recommendations of the Recruitment Board, the respondents were "deemed to have been appointed" on the post of Tehsil Supply Officer.