STATE OF J&K Vs. SUNIL KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE work pertaining to a World Bank Project was to be implemented. For that purpose, a Project Director was appointed. By order dated May 16, 1991, Additional Secretary to the Government, Health and Medical Education Department directed persons holding certain posts to assist the said Project Director. One of them was Senior Assistant, AMT School, Jammu. The Project Director, by an order dated May 10, 1992, appointed petitioner -respondent as Junior Assistant to assist him and, at the same time, directed that his salary be drawn from AMT School, Jammu against the vacant post of Senior Assistant for the purpose of utilizing petitioner -respondent in terms of the said order dated May 16, 1991. The said state of affair makes it abundantly clear that there was no Senior Assistant of AMT School, Jammu, who could assist the Project Director in terms of the Government order dated May 16, 1991 and, accordingly, Project Director engaged petitioner -respondent for the purpose of the Project in place and stead of the Senior Assistant, AMT School, Jammu, who was to assist the Project Director in terms of said order dated May 16, 1991. This appointment dated May 10, 1992 was for two months, which was extended from time to time, until October 31, 1998. Petitioner -respondent remained engaged for the said Project in his said capacity as Junior Assistant in lieu of Senior Assistant of AMT School, Jammu and went on drawing salaries from AMT School, Jammu. On October 30, 1998, Project Director passed an order and thereby provided that after October 31, 1998, petitioner -respondent will report to the Principal, AMT School, Jammu for further duty. Petitioner -respondent went to the Principal, AMT School, Jammu for further duty but he was not accorded any duty and that resulted in filing of the writ petition. When the writ petition was taken up for consideration, as it appears from the judgment and order under appeal, it was contended by the appellants that since the Project has come to an end, there is no scope of retaining petitioner -respondent any further. Taking note of the direction contained in the said order dated October 30, 1998 that after October 31, 1998 petitioner -respondent will report to the Principal, AMT School, Jammu for further duty, the learned Judge felt that in view of the said direction, it became obligatory on the part of the appellants to adjust petitioner -respondent in AMT School, Jammu and, accordingly, allowed the writ petition by issuing such direction.

(2.) AS would be evidenced from the facts narrated above, in view of the absence of Senior Assistant, AMT School, Jammu, who was also to assist the Project Director in terms of the said Government order dated May 16, 1991, an occasion arose for the Project Director to engage somebody but only for the purpose of helping him for the Project and, accordingly, he did so. The Project continued until October 31, 1998 and, accordingly, petitioner remained engaged until October 31, 1998, with a break of one day after every 89 days. After the Project came to an end, Project Director directed petitioner -respondent to report to the Principal, AMT School, Jammu for further duty. This was a mere recommendation. The learned Judge, while rendering the judgment and order under appeal, also felt in the same way. This recommendation was binding on the appellants, had not been discussed or dealt with in the judgment and order under appeal. It had also not been brought on record by the petitioner -respondent what were the modalities for appointments in AMT School, Jammu and whether Project Director of a World Bank sponsored Project had any role to play in relation thereto.

(3.) BE that as it may, since it was a mere recommendation and since there is no finding that such recommendation was binding on the appellants, merely because a recommendation had been made, the same has to be acceded to by the appellants, on the principal whereof the order impugned in this appeal has been passed, we have no other option but to interfere, inasmuch as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner -respondent has not been able to convince us that such a recommendation is binding.