RAFAT TABASUM Vs. STATE OF J&K AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In terms of the instant petition, petitioner seeks regularization of her services against the post of Tutor Demonstrator held by her, by issuance of a writ of mandamus against the respondents. It is also prayed that the petitioner may be given same treatment as has been given to the other similarly situated persons and the employees of the respondent Department. Furthermore, the petitioner seeks a direction in the name of the respondents to release arrears of the salary from the year 1999 along-with the interest at the rate of 24%.

(2.) The case as projected by the petitioner in the instant petition is that earlier she had filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 615/2006 for continuation and regularisation of her services but later on the said writ petition was withdrawn by her, after she was extended assurance by the respondents in writing for her regularization in the other wing of the respondent department. It is further stated that the petitioner had faced regular process of selection and was appointed in the department of Anatomy as Tutor Demonstrator, SKIMS, Bemina, Srinagar vide order dated 03.07.1999, wherein she figured at S.No.04. It is admitted by the petitioner that her appointment was initially for a period of two years but was continued till 2005. Thereafter, in the same year i.e., 2005, as pleaded in the petition, the respondents have issued another advertisement notice for the same posts, which constrained the petitioner to file the writ petition seeking her continuation and regularization against the post held by her. The order dated 13.11.2006 came to be passed in SWP No.615/2006 filed by the petitioner, which reads as under:-

(3.) Despite the aforesaid direction, the petitioner was not appointed subsequently on any position but only extension orders were issued by the respondents in her favour. On 23.01.2013, the respondents are stated to have issued the communication in the name of the petitioner directing her to withdraw all cases whatsoever against the respondents and was told that she would be engaged on same terms and conditions in any limb of the Organisation. Petitioner accordingly, withdrew the said writ petition (SWP No.615/2006). It is also projected by the petitioner that she had filed a civil suit before the civil court challenging the readvertisement of posts vide notification dated 21.04.2005 seeking therein the declaration of re-advertisement notice of the posts as null and void, which too was withdrawn by the petitioner. Respondents are stated to have issued the order dated 09.03.2013, wherein sanction was accorded for engagement of the petitioner as Tutor Demonstrator. It is also pleaded that the petitioner is continuing in the respondent department since 1999 in terms of the orders issued by the respondents from time to time and is eligible to seek appointment, but the respondents have to take into account the age bar of the petitioner also. It is further stated by the petitioner in the instant petition that in the year 2011, when the respondents had issued the advertisement notice, she too had applied under protest in order to be on the safer side however, reserving the right of prosecuting her case in the court of law for her regularization and permanent absorption in the respondent department against the post which she held since 1999 after facing the regular selection process conducted by the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved of the arbitrary and unfair approach of the respondents hence the instant petition.