MOHD YOUSUF PUKHTA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER came to be appointed as Sr. Assistant on 30 -3 - -1983 in the pay scale of 418 -788 on adhoc basis for a period of six months. Prior to that petitioner was working as a peon with effect from 12 -11 -1982 against a clear vacancy. Petitioner was a Matriculate and he could be appointed as Jr. Assistant against 25% quote which was reserved for in service candidates in the Education Department for promotion. Petitioner seems to have continued on adhoc basis as Jr. Assistant for some time. Thereafter petitioner was threatened to be removed from the post which compelled him to file a writ petition in this court which was writ petition No: 812/86. The said writ petition came to be decided by a Division Bench of this court on 4 -8 -1986. Petitioner was permitted to make representation to the Government and bringing o the notice of the Government the recommendations of the Director School Education Kashmir to the effect that the post held by the petitioner should not be treated as a vacant post because the petitioner was working against the said post since 1 -9 -1983 petitioner was permitted to withdraw the writ petition and liberty was given to him t0 approach the Government. Petitioner seems t0 have made a representation to the Government on 6 -8 -1986 which according to the petitioner has not been considered till date. He thereafter filed this writ petition praying that by a writ of mandanus respondent be directed to regularise his services as Jr. Assistant in terms of temporary service Rules of 1961 and also directing the respondents not to oust him from the post which he was holding as Jr. Assistant and he be declared as Quasi permanent.

(2.) REPLY also is filed by the Administrative officer in the office of respondent No. 2. He has controverter the pleas raised by the petitioner. However factual position about the petitioners continuance as peon and thereafter as Jr. Assistant is admitted to be correct.

(3.) AT the outset it may be stated that petitioner has been in continuous service as Jr. Assistant with effect from 30 -8 -83 against an available post which seems to have been vacant. He is working, no doubt on the said post on adhoc basis but he could not continue as adhoc appointee beyond a specified time. The very fact that he was allowed to work beyond the period of six months on adhoc basis is indicative of the fact be was working against a clear vacancy and could not be treated as adhoc appointee under rules after his tenure of adhoc appointment had expired. That being so, he was entitled to be consider on the post against a clear vacancy which he was holding and he could substantively be appointed against the said post