HC directs Director NIT to issue apponintment of petitioners as JE with compensation 5 lacs


SrinAgar, Jul 7: Justice Sanjeev Kumar of Jammu & Kahsmir High Court at Srinagar Wing, while allowing the petition Faizan Amin and another, observed that The petitioners are held entitled to appointment orders in terms of order dated 08.12.2021.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed that since the respondents have not disputed the selection of the petitioners as Jr. Engineers, Civil and Electrical respectively nor have they denied their right to appointment, as such, the writ of mandamus is issued to Director NIT to issue the requisite offers of appointment to the petitioners and after scrutiny of their documents, appoint them against the posts they have been selected in terms of order dated 08.12.2021 within a period of four weeks from today.
HC further ordered that the petitioners are also held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.5.00 lacs (2.50 lac each), to be paid by Director NIT within the aforesaid period. It is made clear that Director NIT on payment of compensation to the petitioners shall be entitled to recover the same from the officer on whose account the appointment of the petitioners has been delayed. Should there be any non-compliance of this order, the Registry shall frame Robkar and place it before the appropriate Bench for orders.
Meanwhile in an application filed by the applicants, namely Mohsin Farooq Kawa and Manzoor Shafi Bhat seeking their impleadment as party- respondents. They are seeking their impleadment on the ground that they are working against the posts of Jr. Engineers against which the petitioners herein have been selected in the selection process conducted by respondent No.2. The applicants claim that they, by performing their continuous duties for more than seven years, have acquired the right of regularization and, therefore, no selection against the posts held by them could be made. They also claim that the selection process conducted by the respondents which has culminated in selection of the petitioners is only an eye wash and conducted only to show door to them.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar after heairing counsel for the applicants and perusal of record, observd that this application grossly misconceived. The applicants are admittedly the holding the posts of Jr. Engineer (Electrical) and Jr. Engineer (Civil) respectively purely on contractual basis for a specified period. They were initially appointed on contractual basis on a consolidated salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month for 59 days. However, their appointments were extended from time to time. The order of their engagement itself makes it clear that their engagement was purely contractual and shall not confer upon them any right or claim on the posts held by them. Their engagement was also provided to be terminable at any time without any advance notice by the respondents. Such being the nature of engagement of the applicants, the argument of Mr. J.H. Reshi, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants, that the applicants are entitled to regularization and that respondent No.2 cannot fill up the posts held by them on regular basis, can only be termed as 'misconceived'.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar further observed that the applicants have not been able to bring to the notice of this Court any Rule, Regulation or policy decision of respondent No.2 with regard to regularization of the services of contractual appointees like the applicants. That apart, the conduct of the applicants exhibited by them before this Court as well as the Civil Court disentitles them to any discretionary relief from this Court. As is elaborately taken note in the judgment below, the first attempt made by the applicants to stall the regular selection process was the filing of WP(C) No. 2602/2021. Having regard to the nature of right a contractual appointee has, this Court while issuing notice to the respondents provided by way of interim arrangement that, if the applicants were in position, they would be allowed to continue till regular selection to fill up the posts held by them was concluded and fresh appointments were made. Obviously, this did not suit the applicants and they approached the Civil Court by way of a civil suit suppressing the factum of filing the writ petition and its pendency before this Court. They even succeeded in persuading the Civil Court to pass an interim order of status quo on 15.12.2021. The said status quo order became impediment in the way of respondent No.2 to issue the appointment orders in favour of the petitioners herein. Be that as it may, the interim order passed by the Civil Court on 15.12.2021 was stayed by the Appellate Court on 29.01.2022. With a view to avoid serious consequences of suppression made before the Civil Court, the applicants, acting smartly, withdrew the writ petition on 18.05.2022.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed that the conduct of the applicants cannot be appreciated and deserves to be dealt with appropriately. Having regard to their locus to intervene in this writ petition, suffice it to say that the instant writ petition is directed against respondent No.2 seeking, inter alia, a Writ of Mandamus to respondent No.2 to issue the appointment orders in favour of the writ petitioners pursuant to the selection made by him. Indisputably, the applicants herein too have participated in the selection process and, therefore, are well within their right to challenge the selection and even the appointments of the writ petitioners, but in the absence of any such challenge thrown to the selection of the writ petitioners, they have no locus to intervene in this petition or seek their impleadment as party-respondents. The applicants cannot be permitted to intervene to play spoilsport and held that the presence of the applicants is neither necessary, nor otherwise required for adjudication of the instant writ petition. The application is, thus, found to be grossly misconceived. Dismissed, as such.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar further observed that however, having regard to the conduct of the applicants exploring misconceived remedies to perpetuate their stay at the cost of the petitioners who are duly selected in the selection process, they are saddled with cost of Rs.2.00 lacs to be shared by them equally. The cost shall be deposited by the applicants in the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks from today. The Registry, on receipt of the said cost, shall deposit the same in the Advocates' Welfare Fund. Should there be any non-compliance of this order, Registry shall prepare Robkar and place the same before the appropriate Bench for orders.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar further observed that time has come to stay firm on frivolous litigation lest it will prevent the Courts from taking up good causes involving adjudication of vital constitutional and other statutory rights of the citizens. It would be no exaggeration to say that a major portion of Court time is wasted in hearing and weeding out frivolous litigation. To serve the cause of justice and to keep the stream of justice unsullied, it is imperative for the Courts to act tough and discourage the tendency of some litigants to misuse the process of law. Imposition of exemplary costs on the applicants is to send a clear and loud message to the litigants like the applicants herein that they should refrain from such attempts lest they are most certainly to face the serious consequences. JNF

Share This Story

Comment On This Story


Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex
NSE Nifty