FEROZ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER pursuant to order dated 30.11.1996, issued by respondent No.4 (District & Sessions Judge, Pulwama) has been appointed as Process Server in the pay scale of Rs.750 -940 plus usual allowances temporarily till appointment of Process Servers is made by the High Court. Petitioner has joined on the same date.

(2.) VIDE letter No.11572/SY dated 12.2.1997 Secretary to Honble Chief Justice (respondent No.3) has conveyed to the respondent No.4 that the orders including order dated 30.11.1996 have not been confirmed by the Honble Chief Justice, at the same time has been asked to explain why such appointments have been made when it was in his notice that such posts have been referred to Selection Committee. Consequent to receipt of this letter, petitioner has not been permitted to mark attendance means has been disengaged. Aggrieved thereof petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking quashment of the said letter and also issuance of mandamus so as to command respondent No.4 to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Process Server and also to pay him the salary due to him from March, 1997 till date and be also paid future pay regularly.

(3.) THE respondents in their counter affidavit have contended that arbitrary method had been resorted to for engagement of petitioner by respondent No.4, i.e. pick and choose method has been adopted which is flagrant violation of policy of recruitment of ministerial staff of the subordinate courts, therefore, no right has accrued to the petitioner. None of the rights of the petitioner is infringed; therefore, petition is not maintainable. It is further added that the petitioner after April, 1997 has not attended the duties nor had any occasion to attend the same, so had no right to mark his attendance. It is further added that neither selection was made by the respondent No.4 nor eligible candidates were given chance to compete, therefore, engagement of the petitioner was de horse the rules so does not create any right in favour of the petitioner, more so when the order of engagement was subject to the confirmation. When engagement is not in accordance with law, same does not create any right.