NIGHAT QURESHI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions involve common questions of fact and law. There are two sets of petitions. Petitioners in Writ petitions, SWP Nos 3059/2001; 250/2002; 1129/2002; 2361/2001; 495/2003; 2014/2002; 104/2002; and 1048/2002 have challenged the appointment of the private respondents besides they are seeking their own consideration for appointment. Petitioners in writ petitions SWP Nos 271/2002; 1140/2002; 1031/2002; 403/2002; 1040/2002 and 276/2002 are the appointees who are seeking their regularization.

(2.) RESUME of the facts of each case are being noticed. SWP No. 2361/2001 (Nighat Qureshi v. State & others).

(3.) PETITIONERS claim to be qualified for the post of Conductress in Social Welfare Department. They applied for the same to the official respondents for their appointment / engagement. Petitioner No.2 was engaged in leave arrangement for some time. Respondents No.5 & 6 who are said to be relatives of respondents No.3 & 4 were appointed as Conductress vide orders dated 30 -5 -2001 and 31 -5 -2001 respectively pursuant to approval of their appointment by the then Minister for Social Welfare. Official respondents as also the private respondents have filed their separate replies to the petition. As far as the official respondents are concerned they have refused to defend the appointment of respondents No.5 & 6, which is stated to be illegal and made by in -competent person. It is further stated that the posts in question are required to be filled up by recruitment by the competent selection committee and not by respondents No.3 & 4. Private respondents claim their regularization in terms of Government Order No. 1285/01 dated 6 -11 -2001. It is claimed that they having been appointed by the Minister, who was competent to make such appointments no exception can be taken to their appointment and continuance as it amounts to exploitation of un -employed persons, who are in position for the last few years. SWP No.2014/2002 (Manju and others v. State and others)