SYED MUSHTAQ AHMED Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Objections already filed on behalf of respondents have been treated as counter and petitioner's counsel states that he does not intend to file a rejoinder thereto. With agreement of counsel therefore the matter is heard and taken up for final disposal.

(2.) Admitting to have been regularized vide Government Order No. 197 of 2000 dated : 02.12.2000 after putting in seven years as Daily Wager the petitioner maintains that the regularisation effected should in terms of certain judgments of the court read with SRO 64 of 1994 have been given effect from 1997 when he completed seven years as Daily Wager.In reply, the respondents have pleaded that due to non availability of a post at the relevant time petitioner's regularisation could not be given retrospective effect as claimed. Thus, the controversy is limited to the date of giving effect to order of regularisation.

(3.) On consideration, 1 find that the question of giving effect to regularisation under SRO 64 of 1994 stands already settled by an authoritative judgment of this court in State of JandK and Ors V. Mahraj Krishan Bhat and Ors, 2004 2 SLJ 612, wherein it has been laid down; that regularisation in terms of aforesaid SRO could be effected only against an available post, because under rules the appointments are required to be made in regular pay scale, and if no posts are available or sanctioned or created by competent authority there can be no valid appointment. In the instant case, the regularisation has been given effect from the date of issuance of Govt. Order No. 197 of 2000 dated: 02.12.2000. Nothing has been pleaded by petitioner to suggest, much-less to show or substantiate, that, prior to that, regular posts were available with the concerned department against which petitioner's appointment could or should have been regularised. That being so, petitioner's prayer for giving retrospective effect to his regularisation appears to be unsubstantiated.