LAWS(J&K)-1998-7-56

MARYAM BANO Vs. STATE OF J & K

Decided On July 29, 1998
Maryam Bano Appellant
V/S
STATE OF J AND K Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed Junior Assistant in the office of Advocate General in December, 1985. Later she came to be transferred on mutual basis to Government Department (Trainings) in exchange with one Sushma Kumari by order dated 24.4.1987. By order dated 19.4.1988 issued by the General Department she has been adjusted in the office of Directorate of Land Records and Consolidation of Holdings, Jammu against the post of Junior Assistant held by one Satish Kumar who was transferred to Public Service Commission against an available vacancy. However, the order of transfer dated 19.4.1988 carries a stipulation that both of them shall retain lien in their parent department.

(2.) The grievance projected by the petitioner is that respondents 4 to 7 (hereinafter private respondents) though junior to her in service have been promoted by respondent No. 3 without considering her for promotion to the next grade, even though her lien has not been suspended. Thus the relief prayed by her is that promotion of private respondents be quashed with a direction that she be considered for promotion along with other eligible persons.

(3.) In the counter filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 the claim made by the petitioner is resisted on the ground that her appointment being only for two years, she had no lien on the post particularly when she was transferred by the General Department much before the expiry of the period of two years. Subsequently the General Department by order dated 12.8.1987 again transferred the petitioner to the office of respondent No. 3 but she was not allowed to join and this culminated in the issue of order dated 19.4.1988. Consequently she stands appointed by transfer and the stipulation that she will retain her lien in the parent department is a surplusage or innocuous because in fact she had not earned the lien at all as the life of the post against which she was appointed being only for two years, she could not have been appointed against a permanent vacancy.