NIGHAT ARA QAURESHI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner on the strength of averments made in the petition seeks following relief:

(2.) The respondents in their reply admit that petitioner was adjusted against leave arrangement after intervals during 1987-1992. Such appointments are stated to have been restricted to one month in each case. It is also admitted that petitioner submitted a representation for her appointment as teacher in relaxation of the rules. However, competent authority is said to have found no merit in the representation. The respondents relying on law laid down in Suraj Prakash v. State of J & K & Ors.,2000 SLJ 163have expressed their inability to appoint her as teacher in relaxation of rules. Respondents insist that appointment to Government services is to be made only after a candidate participates in the selection process initiated by the J & K Subordinate Services Selection Board and is recommended by the Board for appointment.

(3.) Petitioner in her rejoinder claims to stand on same pedestal as the candidates appointed vide Government orders (Annexure M to T) placed on the file and that the respondents are under a constitutional obligation to give same treatment to the petitioner as given to the said appointees. It is stated that the respondents have not been able to point to any difference between petitioners case and that of the similarly circumstanced candidates favoured with appointment orders. The law laid down in Suraj Prakash's case according to the petitioner is not applicable to the present controversy in as much as dispute in the aforementioned case was between direct recruits and in services candidates.