GURDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts, as gathered from the writ record, are that way back in the year 1998, the Director School Education, Jammu vide advertisement notice dated 21.04.1998 invited applications from eligible candidates of Jammu Division for various Class IV posts. The Director School Education constituted selection committees for each district, and these committees were to make recommendations to the Director School Education after completion of interview process. However, the Chief Education Officers of Jammu, Kathua, Poonch, Udhampur and Rajouri in contravention of the prescribed procedure issued the appointment orders on their own. The Director School Education vide order dated 28.06.1999 cancelled all the appointments. Various writ petitions came to be filed by the affected persons, which came to be disposed of by a common judgment directing the Government to re-examine the whole case. Thereafter, the Government decided to initiate fresh selection process and, accordingly, issued advertisement notice dated 26.04.2000 inviting fresh applications for Class-IV posts in respect of Jammu, Kathua, Rajouri, Udhampur and Poonch Districts. However, during the process of selection, the Government vide order dated 11.04.2002 ordered that the ousted Class IV employees be considered for appointment temporarily against the vacancies in the districts to which they belong on a consolidated salary of Rs.1200/- per month till such time fresh selection process is concluded and merit list is drawn. Thereafter, vide order dated 04.04.2003 the said candidates, adjusted on consolidated basis, were placed in the regular pay scale and the selection process pursuant to second advertisement notice came to be stopped. Feeling aggrieved, various writ petitions including SWP No.961/2003 came to be filed by some of the aggrieved candidates, who had applied pursuant to second advertisement notice dated 26.04.2000. All such writ petitions came to be disposed of by a common order with a direction to consider the case of appointment of the petitioners therein in the light of the decision taken by the State in connection with Basharat Hussain & others, who were writ petitioners in SWP No.1476/2003. It was made clear that in case the Government does not take any decision in the matter or if the Government decides not to accord same treatment to the petitioners therein as was given to Basharat Hussain & others in SWP No.1476/2003, then the order of the Government dated 11.04.2002 followed by order dated 04.04.2003 shall stand quashed. Against the said judgment, the Government filed LPA No.49/2008 and the Division Bench vide judgment dated 30.07.2009 upheld the judgment of Single Bench with some modifications. Accordingly, in compliance of the judgment, the Government vide order dated 13.05.2010 appointed the petitioners in SWP No.961/2003 and other connected petitions against Class IV post.

(2.) Now the petitioners herein have filed the instant writ petition seeking the same relief on the ground that they too had applied in response to advertisement notice dated 26.04.2000, as such they are also entitled to be appointed against the post of Class IV on the analogy of petitioners in SWP No.961/2003 and other connected petitions. It is contended that they came to know only when the petitioners in SWP No.961/2003 and other connected petitions joined the department pursuant to order dated 13.05.2010. It is contended that they too represented before the respondents for their appointment against the post of Class-IV post, but the respondents did not pay any heed. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Objections have been filed on behalf of respondents contending therein that the petitioners herein are not similarly circumstanced with the petitioners in SWP No.961/2003 and other connected petitions. It is further contended that the petition is bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties.