M K MOZA Vs. MUZAFFAR JAN BUCHH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two questions which precisely fall for determination in this appeal are

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 originally filed a writ petition against the appellants and respondents 2 to 12 challenging Govt. order No. G -144/ WIP of 1973 dated 12 -2 -1973 whereby the appellants and respondents 2 -12 were promoted on adhoc basis. In the meantime another order No. G -37/73 -Coord of 1973 came to be passed by the Govt on 31 -10 -1974 whereby the earlier adhoc appointments of the appellants as well as respondents 2 to 12 were converted into regular temporary appointments. In their reply affidavit dated 12 -11 -1974 an objection to this effect was raised by respondent No. 2, State of Jammu and Kashmir that the writ petition had become infructuous as the earlier order of adhoc appointments of the appellants as well as respondents 2 to 12 had been replaced by another order of their regular temporary appointments. Ultimately when the arguments in the case started, respondent No. 1 Muzaffar Jan Buchh filed an application in March, 1976 seeking leave to amend the writ petition by throwing a challenge to the subsequent order dated 31 -10 -1974 as well. This application was resisted by the respondents on the grounds that the later order sought to be challenged was an independent order which furnished a fresh cause of action to the petitioner and could not be challenged in the petition already pending which had infact become in -fructuous; that the prayer for amendment was a belated one and that the earlier application for amendment having been rejected no fresh application was maintainable. All these objections raised by respondents were turned down by the learned single Judge and respondent No. 1 allowed to amend his writ petition by throwing a challenge to the subsequent order as well. It is in these circumstances that the above said two questions have cropped up for adjudication by the court:

(3.) MR . S. L. Kaul appearing for respondent No. 1, the only contesting respondent in this appeal has raised a preliminary objection that the order under appeal does not tantamount to a judgment within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent as it does not decide any right wholly or in part which is in controversy between the parties in the writ petition nor does it otherwise effect the merits of the controversy between the parties. The order according to the learned counsel only provides an opportunity to the parties to put forth their respective cases before the court for seeking its verdict on their respective rights.