KAISAR AHMAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OBJECTIONS already filed on behalf of respondents have been treated as counter and petitioners 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 regularization 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 petitioners regularization could not be given retrospective effect as claimed. Thus, the controversy is limited to the date of giving effect to order of regularization.

(3.) ON consideration, I find that the question of giving effect to regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 stands already settled by an authoritative judgment of this court in " State of J&K and Ors V. Mahraj Krishan Bhat and Ors" reported as 2004(2) SLJ 612, wherein it has been laid down; that regularization 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 regularizations 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 petitioners appointment could or should have been regularized. That being so, petitioners prayer for giving retrospective effect to his regularizations appears to be unsubstantiated.