Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 319 (JK)

Mohd. Sikendar Dar v. State Of J. &K.

2002-10-10

R.C.GANDHI

body2002
These petitions involve common questions of law and facts and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners in all these petitions have been appointed by respondents on ad-hoc basis on different dates for a period of 89 days or till selection is made, whichever is earlier and continued by granting extensions by the respondents. The petitioners during the currency of such appointments have approached the court and presently are continuing on the strength of interim directions of the court passed in their respective petitions. The petitioners seek regularisation of their services against the posts they have been appointed on ad-hoc basis. Brief resume of facts attendant to each of the petition is noticed. 3. In SWP No. 1699/91, the petitioner has been appointed as Laboratory Assistant for 89 days vide order dated 4th September, 1989. It is specifically stated in the appointment order that after 89 days the ad-hoc arrangement shall be terminated. The petitioner has been permitted to continue in terms of interim order of the court dated 29th June, 1991. 4. In SWP No. 415/92 petitioner has been appointed for 89 days on 14th September, 1999. By interim order dated 15th May, 1994 passed by the court in SWP No. 751/94, he has been permitted to continue on the post. 5. In SWP No. 854/93 petitioner has been appointed for 89 days on 16th October, 1991 and was continued by extension of his ad-hoc arrangement upto 5th April, 1993. Vide interim order dated 25th July, 1993 passed by the petitioner, the petitioner has been directed to be continued. 6. In SWP No.1169/94 the petitioner was appointed as orderly for a period of 89 days on 13th December, 1993. On 18th January, 1994 she was again appointed for a period of 89 days and vide order dated 15th March, 1994 she has been again appointed for a period of 89 days. Thereafter, she has been directed to be continued by the court vide interim order dated 6th July, 1994. She also filed SWP No. 786/98 challenging order dated 2nd may, 1998 whereby the respondents have disengaged her. The operation of the disengagement order has been stayed by the court vide interim order dated 6th May, 1998 in the aforesaid SWP No.786/98. 7. In SWP No. 1201/95, the petitioner has been appointed for a period of 89 days vide order dated 15th November, 1991. The operation of the disengagement order has been stayed by the court vide interim order dated 6th May, 1998 in the aforesaid SWP No.786/98. 7. In SWP No. 1201/95, the petitioner has been appointed for a period of 89 days vide order dated 15th November, 1991. Last order of extension of his ad-hoc arrangement is dated 3rd November, 1992 for thirty days. The court vide interim order dated 17th November, 1996 directed continuation of the petitioner in terms of order passed in SWP No.1581/91. He has also been directed to be continued in SWP No. 2904/92. SWP No. 2904/92 has been dismissed. SWP No. 1581/91 filed by some other person, wherein the petitioner is not a party, has also been dismissed on 17th November, 1992. 8. In SWP No. 444/95, the petitioner has been appointed as a substitute GCO for 58 days in make-shift arrangement vide order dated 3rd March, 1992. He has been continued vide order dated 7th May, 1992 till further orders. By interim order dated 9.8.1996 passed by the court, the petitioner has been directed to be continued. 9. In SWP No.1342/95 the petitioner was appointed as Lib. Assistant for a period of 89 days on Ist June, 1992. His appointment was extended by 89 days upto 31st May, 1994. He has been directed to be continued by court order dated 12th April, 1994 passed in SWP No.807/94. Both the petitions have been filed for seeking the same relief. 10. In SWP No.1554/95, the petitioner has been appointed as Workshop Attendant for a period of three months vide order dated 29th April, 1993. His appointment elapsed by afflux of time. He was, thereafter, appointed as Night Chowkidar in ITI, Pattan vide order dated 3rd August, 1994 till the post of Workshop Attendant becomes available. Respondents have filed objections stating therein that the post of Workshop Attendant is not available and appointment of the petitioner was without any post and thus illegal. His salary was drawn against the post of Supervisor. The petitioner seeks regularisation of his services as Stenographer on the ground that the respondents are getting the work of Stenographer from him which has been denied by the respondents. 11. In SWP No.2558/96 the petitioner has been appointed as teacher for a period of 89 days vide order dated 20th April, 1988 and seeks regularisation of his service as teacher. 11. In SWP No.2558/96 the petitioner has been appointed as teacher for a period of 89 days vide order dated 20th April, 1988 and seeks regularisation of his service as teacher. Respondents in their counter-affidavit have stated that the petitioner was engaged against leave vacancy and his services thus cannot be regularised. It is also stated that appointment of the petitioner is fake as she could not produce the relevant evidence before the respondents. The petitioner has been directed to be continued vide court order dated 3rd October, 1996. 12. In SWP No.2444/97 the petitioner has been appointed for a period of 89 days on 14th September, 1993. She has been permitted to continue by the court by interim order dated 15th April, 1994 passed in SWP No.751/94. 13. In SWP No.3428/97 the petitioner has been appointed as Junior Assistant for 89 days vide order dated 29th August, 1990. His appointment has been extended vide order dated 27th November, 1998 for 89 days. It has again been extended for a further period of 89 days vide order dated 3rd February, 1991. No further extension has been granted. 14. In SWP No.2298/97 the petitioner has been appointed as Dhobi vide order dated 2nd December, 1993. His appointment has been continued in terms of interim direction passed in SWP No.2251/93 which has been filed by one Safina Arif and the petitioner is not a party therein. This petition filed by Safina Arif has been dismissed on 15th November, 1999. 15. In SWP No. 2405/98 petitioners have been engaged for a period of 89 days as Class IV employees in the year 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995 and 1996. Vide interim order passed by the court on 2nd December, 1998 they have been permitted to continue. 16. In SWP No.2140/98 petitioner has been appointed for 89 days as Supervisor vide order dated 4.3.1993.She has been permitted to continue vide interim order dated 9th September, 1993 passed in SWP No. 1947/91 which petition has not been fed into the computer. 17. In SWP No. 1980/99 petitioners have been appointed as Class IV employees for a period of 89 days and the last extension is dated 16th September, 1999 for 89 days. They have been permitted to continue vide interim order dated 13th December, 1999. 18. 17. In SWP No. 1980/99 petitioners have been appointed as Class IV employees for a period of 89 days and the last extension is dated 16th September, 1999 for 89 days. They have been permitted to continue vide interim order dated 13th December, 1999. 18. In SWP No.1865/99, the petitioner has been appointed as Supervisor for a period of 89 days vide order dated 20th December, 1991. He was permitted to continue vide interim order passed in SWP No.465/92 which has been disposed of on 25th August, 2000. The petitioner in this petition seeks a similar relief. This petition (SWP No.1865 of 1999) seeking the same relief, is not maintainable. 19. In SWP No. 967/2000 the petitioners have been engaged as Junior Assistant/Ledger Clerks in the year 1996. Last order of extension in their ad-hoc appointments is for 89 days with effect from 14th April, 2000 till the posts are filled up. They have been permitted to continue vide interim order passed by the court on 31st July, 2000. 20. In SWP No.1850/2000 the petitioner has been appointed as Gardner for three months vide order dated 12th July, 1989. His appointment as such came to be terminated in pursuance of communication dated 10th July, 1990 of the Administrative Department. This communication has been challenged by the petitioner in another writ petition particulars of which have not been made available by the petitioner and it appears that the petitioner has teen permitted to continue vide court order dated 23rd November, 2000. The petitioner also filed SWP No.1302/2000 seeking consideration for regularisation of his services under SRO 64 of 1994 having worked as Daily Wager. This petition has been disposed of vide order dated 18th September, 2000. 21. In SWP No. 1195/96 petitioner has been appointed as peon for a period of 89 days with effect from 15th April, 1996 vide order dated 10th April 1996. Vide interim order of the court it was directed that his services be not dispensed with till further orders. 22. In SWP No.71/2002, the petitioner has been appointed as a teacher for a period of sixty days with effect from 23rd December, 1991. Vide interim order of the court dated 20.1.1992 passed in SWP No.46/92 petitioner was permitted to continue on the post. Similar direction was also passed by the court in SWP No.1647/96 on 25th July, 1996. 22. In SWP No.71/2002, the petitioner has been appointed as a teacher for a period of sixty days with effect from 23rd December, 1991. Vide interim order of the court dated 20.1.1992 passed in SWP No.46/92 petitioner was permitted to continue on the post. Similar direction was also passed by the court in SWP No.1647/96 on 25th July, 1996. Both these petitions have been dismissed by the court either in default or for non-prosecution vide orders of the court dated 26th May, 2000 and 9th August, 2000 respectively. Respondents have filed their objections wherein it is, inter alia, stated that the petitioner was engaged as teacher by an incompetent authority, as such the order does not create any right in the petitioner. 23. In SWP No. 1213/2002 petitioners were appointed against available post of A.N.M. for 89 days vide orders dated 18th September, 1997 and 23rd September, 1997 respectively. They were continued with break of one day after every spell of 89 days. In this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents not to disturb their engagement and to allow them to continue on the posts held by them till selections are made. 24. In SWP No. 1242/2002, the petitioner has been appointed as Driver for a period of 89 days or till selection is made, whichever is earlier, vide order No.472-DSW of 1997 dated 3.10.1997 passed by Director, Social Welfare Department, Srinagar. Petitioner claims to have filed SWP No. 27/1998 in which, according to him, interim direction for his continuation was passed by the Court. Reference of SWP No. 27/1998 titled Mohd. Shafi Lone S/o Haji Mohd. Sultan Lone R/o Brow Bandina Tehsil and District Pulwama v State and others is also made in the caption of letter No. DSW/Estt/2104-05/98 dated 12.2.1998 addressed by Dy. Director (C), Director of Social Welfare to the Programe Officer, ICDS, Pulwama. Records of SWP No.27/1998 were called from the Registry and it is revealed therefrom that the petitioner in that petition is a lady, named, Saleema. This casts a serious doubt on the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner about filing of earlier writ petition and interim direction stated to have been passed therein, which the respondents concerned shall have to verify. 25. This casts a serious doubt on the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner about filing of earlier writ petition and interim direction stated to have been passed therein, which the respondents concerned shall have to verify. 25. In SWP No.1153/2002, the petitioner has been appointed as Driver for 89 days vide order dated 12.10.1996 which has been extended till further orders vide order dated 2.2.1998. He has interim direction dated 26.8. 2002 of the court in his favour. 26. In SWP No.1245/2002, the petitioner has been appointed as Junior Agriculture Assistant in the Agriculture Department on ad-hoc basis for a period of 89 days vide order dated 25.9.2001. Vide Government orders dated 4.1.2002, 2.4.2002 and 2.8.2002, the Government has extended the ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner on the post for 89 days on each occasion. He has approached this court for regularisation of his services. 27. In SWP No.1830/99, the petitioner appears to have been recommended for adjustment/appointment for 89 days on ad-hoc basis as a Safaiwalla by Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama. Claim of the petitioner is that pursuant to the aforesaid recommendations, he was initially appointed for a period of 89 days and vide order dated 17.1.1992 his ad-hoc appointment was extended for a further period of two months. His ad-hoc appointment as such was further extended vide orders dated 23.1.1992 and 25.3.1992 for two months each time. Petitioner in this petition seeks regularisation on the analogy of one Mst. Khatija Begum, Safaiwalla. In terms of interim direction of the court passed on 15th November, 1999, the petitioner has been directed to be continued on the post. 28. In SWP No.187/2001, the petitioners, seventy three in number, have been appointed as Foresters on ad-hoc basis for a period of six months or till the posts are filled by SSB whichever is earlier in terms of Government order No.247 of 2000 dated 4th September, 2000. There was a condition laid down in the appointment order itself that these appointments shall automatically cease after expiry of six months and the candidates shall have no preferential claim for permanent absorption and shall have to compete with all other eligible candidates as per rules. Petitioners have approached this court for directing the respondents to initiate & complete the process of selection against these posts in accordance with rules and till then they be directed to be allowed to continue on their posts. Petitioners have approached this court for directing the respondents to initiate & complete the process of selection against these posts in accordance with rules and till then they be directed to be allowed to continue on their posts. By interim order dated 22nd February, 2001 they have been directed to be continued, leaving the respondents free to fill up these posts substantively by due selection. 29. In SWP No.940/2000, the petitioner has been appointed as Laboratory Assistant on ad-hoc basis for a period of 89 days in terms of order dated 26.8.1992 issued by Principal/Dean, Government Medical College, Srinagar. Though the ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner was to last only for 89 days, yet the petitioner claims to have been continued al-beit there is no express order of extention of his ad-hoc appointment. Petitioner has placed on record certain orders indicating that he has been shifted from one department of the Medical College to another even beyond the period of 89 days. In terms of interim direction of the court dated 3.8.2000, petitioner has been directed to be continued. 30. In SWP No. 1885/99, the petitioner claims to have been appointed as Driver vide order dated 1.7.1998 on the instructions of Financial Commissioner, J&K. Vide order dated 14.9.1999 issued by Settlement Tehsildar, Kulgam, on the instructions of Financial Commissioner, he has been allowed to continue. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to continue him on the post till selection for regular appointment is made. 31. In SWP No. 1273/2002, the petitioner was appointed as Driver on ad-hoc basis for 89 days in the first instance or till final selection of Service Selection Recruitment Board, whichever is earlier by order dated 29th June, 2002 passed by Assistant Commissioner (C). The petitioner seems to have been working as Driver on consolidated pay prior to the aforesaid order. During the currency of the order dated 29th June, 2002, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking regularisation against the post on the analogy of similar persons. 32. In SWP No. 1814/99 the petitioner has been appointed as Plant Protection Operator on ad-hoc basis for 89 days vide order dated 11th April, 1996. Subsequently, vide order dated 20th December, 1996 issued by Chief Agriculture Officer, Baramulla, order dated 11th April, 1996 was ordered to remain in force till further orders. 32. In SWP No. 1814/99 the petitioner has been appointed as Plant Protection Operator on ad-hoc basis for 89 days vide order dated 11th April, 1996. Subsequently, vide order dated 20th December, 1996 issued by Chief Agriculture Officer, Baramulla, order dated 11th April, 1996 was ordered to remain in force till further orders. Vide interim direction of the Court dated 19.11.1999, petitioner has been ordered to be continued. 33. In SWP No. 1807/99, the petitioner has been appointed as Orderly for 89 days vide order dated 31.10.1997 and his salary was to be drawn against the post of Junior Assistant. He has been continued by respondents. Vide interim direction of the court respondents were directed that petitioner should not be replaced by another ad-hoc or temporary employee but must be replaced only by regularly selected employee. 34. In SWP No. 3047/97, the petitioner was appointed as PA in ICDS Projects in District Anantnag till the post is filled up formally by the Competent Authority, by Secretary, Social Welfare, Srinagar vide order dated 1st August, 1996. However, in pursuance of directions of Director, Social Welfare, the petitioners appointment was ordered to be treated only for two months. Vide order dated 7.4.1997 he was then engaged as Junior Assistant for a period of two months which was extended for a period of 30 days vide order dated 4.6.1997. Vide interim order of the court dated 4.7.1997 respondents were directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the petitioners position obtaining on that date. 35. In SWP No. 2173/98, the petitioner has been appointed as Assistant Store Keeper for 89 days vide order dated 29th June, 1998. During the currency of the order, he approached this court and vide order dated 25.11.1998 he was directed to be continued. 36. In SWP No.1526, the petitioner has been appointed for 89 days as Chowkidar vide order dated 29th June, 1998. Vide interim direction of the court dated 17.10.2000 he has been ordered to be continued. 37. In SWP No.216/96, the petitioner was appointed as Attendant for sixty days vide order dated 4.5.1995. His engagement as such was continued in terms of order dated 3.7.1995. Vide interim direction of the court dated 17.10.2000 he has been ordered to be continued. 37. In SWP No.216/96, the petitioner was appointed as Attendant for sixty days vide order dated 4.5.1995. His engagement as such was continued in terms of order dated 3.7.1995. Subsequently, vide order dated 5.10.1995 his term was further extended, but the order was withdrawn on 3.2.1996 and he was ordered to be continued for a period of sixty days with effect from the expiry of the previous term with one days break as leave arrangement. The petitioner challenged this order and vide interim direction dated 1.3.1996 petitioner has been ordered to be continued on the post. 38. In SWP No.2335/97, the petitioner has been appointed as Wireman for 89 days vide order dated 15.10.1993. There is no extension order on record, but it is pleaded that the petitioner has been continuing on the post eversince. 39. In SWP No.2069/2000, the petitioner was appointed as Helper for a period of three months vide order dated 12.7.1989. There is no extension order placed on record of the petition, but it is pleaded that the petitioner continues on the post. 40. In SWP No.1231/2002, the petitioner has been appointed as teacher for 89 days vide order dated 28.3.2002 by Zonal Education Officer. Vide Govt. order dated 10.7.2002 petitioner has been again engaged as teacher for 89 days. Then again vide Government Order No.1156-GAD of 2002 dated 10.7.2002 sanction has been accorded to the ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner as teacher for a period of 89 days. Petitioner through the writ petition seeks direction to the respondents to allow him to continue on the post till the same is substantively filled up. 41. In SWP No.2025/95 petitioner has been engaged as Junior Instructor for 89 days vide order dated 20 10.1998. He has been continued on the post by way of extensions granted vide orders dated 12.1.99, 24.3.1999 and 26.6.1999. He has also been directed to be continued vide interim direction of the court dated 13.12.1999. 42. In SWP No.1301/2000, the petitioner has been appointed as AMC on ad-hoc basis for 89 days vide order dated 12.8.1996. He has been permitted to be continued in terms of interim direction of the court dated 19th September, 2000. 43. He has also been directed to be continued vide interim direction of the court dated 13.12.1999. 42. In SWP No.1301/2000, the petitioner has been appointed as AMC on ad-hoc basis for 89 days vide order dated 12.8.1996. He has been permitted to be continued in terms of interim direction of the court dated 19th September, 2000. 43. It is evident from the facts attendant to these writ petitions that the petitioners have been engaged on ad-hoc basis on different posts and on different dates for varied spells, initially either for sixty days, eighty nine days or thirty days. In certain cases the petitioners have been granted extensions in their ad-hoc appointments by the concerned authorities and in most of the cases, the petitioners have approached this court immediately during the currency of the first spell of their ad-hoc arrangement. Almost in all the cases, the petitioners are continuing on their respective posts on the strength of interim orders passed by the court in these writ petitions. 44. The petitioners are seeking the relief of regularisation of their services which means substantive appointment against the posts held by them. 45. The respondents in some of the writ petitions have filed their objections/counter-affidavits and in some of the petitions replies have not been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, have prayed for taking up all these matters for hearing for final disposal without filing counter affidavits. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have no objection to this course being adopted. 46. Accordingly, all these petitions are admitted to hearing and objections/replies filed by the respondents are treated as counter-affidavits in the respective petitions. Where-ever objections/replies have not been filed, respondents are permitted to make oral submissions for final disposal of the petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners have opted not to file any Rejoinders. 47. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Petitioners have been admittedly appointed on ad-hoc basis for brief spells of time, with a specific condition mentioned in almost every order that the appointee shall continue for the specified period or till selections were made, whichever would occur earlier. As observed earlier, almost all the petitioners have been permitted to continue on their respective posts on the strength of interim orders of the court. 48. As observed earlier, almost all the petitioners have been permitted to continue on their respective posts on the strength of interim orders of the court. 48. The State Government has issued Government order No.1285-GAD of 2001 dated 6th November, 2001 envisaging regularisation of ad-hoc appointments against non-gazetted post made by various Departments. The petitioners also seek their consideration in terms of the aforesaid Government order. 49. The points which emerge for determination, from the facts and circumstances attendant to these petitions and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, are enumerated below : (i) Whether the ad-hoc appointments of the petitioners, ordered either by competent or incompetent authorities, are in accordance with the Rules governing these appointments and extensions granted by the respondents thereto are permissible within law? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek regularisation in face of the fact that they are working on ad-hoc arrangements on the strength of court orders? (iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek consideration for regularisation of their services in terms of Government order No.1285-GAD of 1992 dated 6th November, 2001 ? 50. To appreciate the pleas taken by learned counsel for the parties, the legal position with regard to the validity of ad-hoc appointment, its continuation and the claim for regularisation need to be noticed. 51. Public employment is a national wealth and all eligible citizens are equally entitled to share it. They are entitled to seek consideration to such public employment as and when offer is made by notification by the State. It cannot be permitted to be monoplised or distributed by back-door entry. Every citizen of the State is entitled to share this wealth of the State, of course, on the basis of eligibility, merit and suitability, to be determined by a selection process conducted in accordance with the settled principles of law. In case public employment is not offered to the eligible citizens of the State, it stall amount to denial of the share of the public property, which generates the source of livelihood to the deserving citizens and inculcates a sense of administration and governance of the affairs of the State. 52. The State has framed the Rules for selection of suitable candidates on the basis of merit, efficiency and other relevant considerations for appointment to public posts. 52. The State has framed the Rules for selection of suitable candidates on the basis of merit, efficiency and other relevant considerations for appointment to public posts. The committees/Boards constituted for the purpose comprise of persons having specialisation to select suitable candidates in different fields of the Administration. A public post is required to be filled up by a suitable candidate on the recommendation of the Service Selection Board or the Selection Committees which are in existence. However, some times the employer feels the necessity of making a vacant post functional in public interest in a situation where the post cannot be filled up substantively due to certain reasons. To meet such an exigency Rule 14 has been incorporated in the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 (hereafter for short `CCA Rules, 1956) which is quoted below : "14. Temporary appointments.- Where it is necessary in the public interest owing to an emergency which has arisen and could not have been foreseen, to fill immediately a vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of service, class or category and the making of an appointment to such vacancy in accordance with these rules would involve undue delay, excessive expenditure or administrative inconveniences, the appointing authority may appoint a person otherwise than in accordance with these rules temporarily with the prior approval of the Chief Minister in Co-ordination until a person is appointed in accordance with these rules but such temporary appointment shall in no case exceed three months on each occasion and not more than nine months in all." (underlining supplied) 53. This provision of law envisages unforeseen emergency or other reasons contained therein for filling up the post on ad-hoc basis for a period of three months initially which can be extended and the total period of such ad-hoc appointment cannot exceed nine months. Secondly, such appointment has to be made with prior approval of the Chief Minister in Co-ordination until a person is appointed in accordance with the rules against the post. It is also axiomatic from the rule that the factors, emergency, unforeseen exigency, undue delay that may be caused if the vacancy is filled up in accordance with the rules, excessive expenditure or the administrative inconveniences, envisaged by Rule 14 as quoted hereinabove, cannot subsist beyond the period of nine months. It is also axiomatic from the rule that the factors, emergency, unforeseen exigency, undue delay that may be caused if the vacancy is filled up in accordance with the rules, excessive expenditure or the administrative inconveniences, envisaged by Rule 14 as quoted hereinabove, cannot subsist beyond the period of nine months. In other words, the concerned authority/authorities is enjoined upon to refer the post to the concerned Selection Board as soon as possible so that the process of selection and filling up of the post in accordance with the rules governing the subject-matter is completed by the end of the period of nine months. The words `until a person is appointed in accordance with these rules but such temporary appointment shall in no case exceed three months on each occasion and not more than nine months in all connote that steps for filling up the post on substantive basis have to be taken simultaneous with the making of an ad-hoc arrangement. The rule does not contemplate that the appointing authority will make ad-hoc arrangement and sleep over the matter of reference of the post to the concerned Selection Board for filling up the post. The factors, except the public interest, which entitle an appointing authority to make ad-hoc appointment cannot be allowed to continue to subsist for indefinite period of time. The rule clearly places a rider on continuation of such ad-hoc appointment beyond nine months. 54. Perusal of the pleadings reveals that none of the petitioners has been appointed in compliance with the mandate of Rule 14 of the CCA Rules. The appointing authorities, and, in some cases the officers who are not empowered to make such appoints, have made these appointments dehors Rule 14 of the CCA Rules. 55. It would be apt to make a reference to the law laid down by this Court from time to time on the issue of ad-hoc appointments. In Bashir Ahmad Malik v. State of J&K, 2000 SLJ 106, the Letters Patent Bench of this Court observed as under :- "6. The appellant has continued in service in pursuance of interim orders passed by this Court. This would not improve his claim for regularisation. See State of U. P. v. Raj Karan Singh (1998) 8 SCC 529. In Bashir Ahmad Malik v. State of J&K, 2000 SLJ 106, the Letters Patent Bench of this Court observed as under :- "6. The appellant has continued in service in pursuance of interim orders passed by this Court. This would not improve his claim for regularisation. See State of U. P. v. Raj Karan Singh (1998) 8 SCC 529. Again what was said by the Supreme Court in the case reported as Keshav Narayan Gupta and Ors v. Jila Parishad Shivpuri (MP) & Anr. (1998)9 SCC 78, can be taken note of. It was observed that the appellants in the above case be allowed to continue till regular appointments to the posts occupied by them are made. The relevant observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case are reproduced below :- Hence, if any regular appointments are made, the cases of the appellants should also be considered by having, if necessary, consideration to the age bar. We see some force in this contention. We, accordingly, direct that when regular appointments to the posts at present occupied by the appellants are made, the cases of the appellants will also be considered alongwith the other applicants by waiving the age bar in the case of the appellants, if necessary. Until such regular appointments are made the appellants will continue to function on an ad-hoc basis as of now. 7. It is directed that appointment be allowed to continue till a regular selection is made. In case of a regular selection, the appellants claim be considered alongwith other candidates in relaxation of the age bar. 8. It would further be apt for the State to see to it that adhoc arrangement are not permitted to be continued for six years to come. Needless to mention that adhoc appointments do not advance the cause of the State and even the cause of the employees who are so appointed. The policy of adhocism adopted by the State Government for a long time results in breach of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Adhoc appointments are unreasonable and these are nothing but the archaic hire and fire policy since demolished by the Constitution and law of land. The system of making appointments on adhoc basis for varying periods is clearly violative of Constitutional protection. Adhoc appointments are unreasonable and these are nothing but the archaic hire and fire policy since demolished by the Constitution and law of land. The system of making appointments on adhoc basis for varying periods is clearly violative of Constitutional protection. It is a character for arbitrary preference which should not be used as an administrative licence to ignore the service conditions and rights of others. Provisional appointments are to be made in very urgent cases. This power is to be invoked sparingly." 56. It appears that Rule 14 of the CCA Rules has not been brought to the notice of the Division Bench in the aforesaid case. However, in case Mumtaza Akhter v. State of J&K & Ors, 2000 SLJ 22, another Division Bench of this Court, while considering Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, observed as under :- "4. The appointment of the appellant admittedly is on adhoc basis for a period of sixty days. Adhoc appointment can be made only in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 14 of the Rules of 1956, which is extracted below:........" 5. This provision of law envisages that due to unforeseen emergency, if a post is required to be filled in public interest, till it can be filled up in accordance with the rules and the prescribed procedure, the appointing authority may appoint a person otherwise than in accordance with the rules with the approval of the Chief Minister in coordination and such appointment shall in no case exceed three months on each occasion and not more than nine months. Chief Medical Officer, Anantnag, has appointed the petitioner neither in accordance with the rules nor referring the case for approval of the Chief Minister in coordination, for adhoc appointment of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant could not make out that this provision of law has been taken care of by the appointing authority, while appointing the appellant. We hold that the appointment of the appellant being dehors Rule 14 of the Rules of 1956, he is not, therefore, entitled to seek regularisation". 57. Again similar proposition of facts and law was involved in Miss Rajni Rani v. Union of india & Ors., 2002 (1) SLJ 18 and it was brought to the notice of the Division Bench by the respondents that four posts of Stenographers Grade-III were available. 57. Again similar proposition of facts and law was involved in Miss Rajni Rani v. Union of india & Ors., 2002 (1) SLJ 18 and it was brought to the notice of the Division Bench by the respondents that four posts of Stenographers Grade-III were available. The Division Bench disposed of the appeal with the following directions :- "a) The respondents shall conduct another test/examination of the appellant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. (b) Till such time that test/examination is conducted by the respondents, the appellant shall be allowed to continue in the post she is holding. (c) If the appellant succeeds in the test to be conducted by the respondents, she shall be regularised in the post held by her. However, if the appellant fails to succeed in the test to be conducted by the respondents, the respondent is at liberty to pass any order as is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 58. Similarly, identical issue was involved in Liyaqat Hussain Zargar v. State of J&K & Ors., 2002 (1) SLJ 247 where the petitioner was appointed for 89 days on ad-hoc basis. This Court dismissed the writ petition observing as under : "6. It is not denied that the petitioner has been appointed on ad-hoc basis for a period of 89 days and the said period has not been extended by the respondents. The appointment of the petitioner, therefore, by efflux of time stood determined. This proposition of law has been settled by the Supreme Court in case titled Director, Institute of Management Development, UP v. Pushpa Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 2070 holding that : `Where the appointment is purely on adhoc basis and is contractual and by efflux of time, the appointment comes to an end, the person holding such post can have no right to continue in the post. This is so even if the person is continued from time to time on adhoc basis for more than a year. He cannot claim regularisation in service on basis that he was appointed on adhoc for more than a year. 7. The only provision of law for adhoc appointment is Rule 14 of J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. He cannot claim regularisation in service on basis that he was appointed on adhoc for more than a year. 7. The only provision of law for adhoc appointment is Rule 14 of J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. The petitioner has been appointed by the respondent No.2 in exercise of the power contained in the said provisions of law. It is not made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this provision of law has been followed and satisfied by the Respondent No.2 for adhoc appointment of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Respondent in rebuttal has submitted that the petitioners appointment cannot be continued for the reasons that neither it has been extended by the appointing authority nor made by following Rule 14 of the Rules of 1956. Similar question was before the Division Bench of this Court in case titled Mumtaza Akhter v. State and Ors., 2001 SLJ 22... 8. We hold that the appointment of the appellant being dehors Rule 14 of the Rules of 1956, he is not, therefore, entitled to seek regularisation. 9. For continuation of the petitioner it should be made out that the intial appointment is in conformity with specific law and not made either in breach of or ignoring the said provision of law. The appointment of the petitioner found made in breach of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1956 cannot thus, be continued. 10. Another argument of the learned counsel for the Respondents is that the petitioner, being continuing on the strength of the interim order of the civil court, is not entitled to the relief prayed for as the continuation on the strength of the interim direction does not improve his case either for regularisation or continuation. In support of this plea, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in case State of U.P. & Ors. v. Rajkaran Singh, 1998 (8) SCC 529 holding thus : `Besides, merely because of a person continues under the interim orders of the court, such continuance on the post cannot and, in this case, does enhance his case for regularisation. It is only an interim arrangement pending decision by the court and cannot disturb the position in law or equities, as on the date of the petition." (Underlining and emphasis Supplied) 59. It is only an interim arrangement pending decision by the court and cannot disturb the position in law or equities, as on the date of the petition." (Underlining and emphasis Supplied) 59. In Aijaz Hussain Zargar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors., LPA No. 101/2002 decided on 22nd July, 2002, again identical issue was involved. The appellant (writ petitioner) in that case was appointed on ad-hoc basis for a period of 89 days or till the post be filled up by the competent authority, whichever would occur earlier and, on the strength of the appointment order and his continuation against the post, the appellant sought regularisation. The writ petition filed by him was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Bench, while upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge, in the course of the order, observed as under : "So far as ad hoc appointments are concerned, it is known in the service jurisprudence that it is only for stop gap arrangement. It is made due to exigency of a particular situation without considering the merit of others who are likely to get benefit. They may not be considered in view of the situation. By back door entry into Government service by ad-hoc appointment, if a person is appointed for 89 days but continued in service in view of the orders made by the court, can it be said that he has a legal right to continue? In the opinion of the court, certainly not, because if the services of an ad-hoc appointee were needed by the authority concerned beyond 89 days, then the services of such employee could have been extended by an order of the authority concerned..." 60. The Division Bench further observed : "In the instant case, as indicated earlier, petitioner was continued, not by the appointing authority but under the orders of the court he was continued and, therefore, this benefit is not available to the petitioner." 61. Considering the judgment of the Apex Court in Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan & Ors, AIR 1994 SC 1808, the Division Bench in Aijaz Hussain v. State (supra) declared that the judgment rendered in Mohammad Yousuf Pukhta v. State of J&K, SLJ 1989 J&K 62 is not a good law. Considering the judgment of the Apex Court in Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan & Ors, AIR 1994 SC 1808, the Division Bench in Aijaz Hussain v. State (supra) declared that the judgment rendered in Mohammad Yousuf Pukhta v. State of J&K, SLJ 1989 J&K 62 is not a good law. The Division Bench examining the nature and continuation of the ad-hoc appointment further observed as under : "It is required to be noted that by ad-hoc appointment by back door entry, if same is regularised on account of continuance in service, it would adversely affect the other eligible candidates and particularly candidates belonging to the reserved categories. As pointed out by the Apex Court in case State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118 that the normal rule is regular recruitment through prescribed agency, but exigencies of administration may some times call for an ad-hoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be made to replace such an adhoc/ temporary employee by a regularly selected employee as early as possible. The temporary employees would also get liberty to compete along with others for regular selection, but if he is not selected, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The Apex Court also pointed out that the appointment of the regularly appointed candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such temporary or ad-hoc employee. The court pointed out that, therefore, this court did not appear to have intended to lay down a general rule that in every category of ad-hoc appointment, if the ad-hoc appointee continued for longer period, rules of recruitment should be relaxed and the appointment be regularised." 62. In Union of India v. Bishamber Dutt (1996)11 Supreme Court cases 341, wherein the petitioners were appointed on consolidated pay of Rs. 500/ subsequently raised to Rs. 600/-, per month, and sought regularisation, the Supreme Court held as under :- "... It is not necessary to consider the case whether it is full-time or hourly basis or monthly basis. Suffice it to state that they were not appointed to a regular post after selection according to rules; they were appointed as part time employees dehors the rules. The questions, therefore, is whether they are entitled to the temporary status or regularisation as directed by the Tribunal? Suffice it to state that they were not appointed to a regular post after selection according to rules; they were appointed as part time employees dehors the rules. The questions, therefore, is whether they are entitled to the temporary status or regularisation as directed by the Tribunal? It is seen that pursuant to the enquiry whether temporary status should be granted to the part-time employees, directions were issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension dated 12.7.1994 in the Memorandum clause 3, that they are not entitled to such status. Since they are not appointed on regular basis in accordance with rules the direction issued by the Tribunal to regularise the service is obviously illegal. It is then contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the fact that they were regularly working for a long time they are entitled to regularisation. We do not appreciate the stand taken on behalf of the respondents. Unless they are appointed on regular basis according to rules after consideration of the claims on merits, there is no question of regularisation of the services." (underlining supplied) 63. As is evident from the facts attendant to each of these petitions, none of the ad-hoc appointments of the petitioners herein has been made by the respondents in compliance with the mandate of Rule 14 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1956. In view of the settled position of law, none of these petitioners is entitled to regularisation against the posts respectively held by them, their appointment being dehors Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1956. 64. The plea of the learned counsel for petitioners in some of the cases is that those of the petitioners, who have completed seven years of ad-hoc appointment, are required to be considered for regularisation in terms of Government order No.1285-GAD of 2001 dated 6th November, 2001. The order is quoted below :- "GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT. Sub: Regularisation of adhoc appointments against non-gazetted posts made by various Departments. Ref : Cabinet decision No. 135/11(B) dated 10.9.2001. The order is quoted below :- "GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT. Sub: Regularisation of adhoc appointments against non-gazetted posts made by various Departments. Ref : Cabinet decision No. 135/11(B) dated 10.9.2001. Government Order No.1285-GAD of 2001 Dated 6.11.2001 Whereas, in the writ petition No. SWP 283/94 titled Uttam Singh, (who was working on a class-IV post on adhoc basis) v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, and connected writ petitions, the Honble High Court of J&K vide its judgment dated 12.2.1998 inter alia observed as under :- `I am of the opinion that he becomes entitled to regularisation in terms of Rules of 1994. The stand taken by respondent-State that the petitioner was an adhoc employee and, therefore, he would not be entitled to regularisation, cannot be sustained. The case of an adhoc employee cannot be worse than a daily rated worker. The observations made by the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana. Piara Singh AIR 1992 SC 2130 would also be attracted... `...The petitioner, Uttam Singh, shall be entitled to continuity of service. He would also be entitled to all back wages and other consequential benefits. Whereas, under the Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers Regularisation Rules, 1994, a daily rated worker engaged prior to 31.1.1994 is eligible for regularisation after seven years of continuous service; Whereas a number of appointments have also been made on adhoc basis in different Government Departments and the Government is of the view that their cases also need be considered in the light of the broad principles discussed by the Honble High Court in its judgment referred to above i.e. they be also considered for regularisation after putting in seven years continuous service like daily wagers appointed prior to 31.1.1994. Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered that all adhoc appointees to non-gazetted posts recruited from time to time beyond 29.12.1988 till the date of issue of this order who are still in service be considered for regularisation after completing seven years continuous service from the date of appointment dispensing with reference of posts held by them to Service Selection Board subject to the following conditions, that : (1) He/she is a permanent resident of J&K State; (2) on the date of his/her initial appointment his/her age was within the minimum and maximum age limit as prescribed for appointment in Government Service. (3) he/she possesses the prescribed academic and/or technical qualification for the post against which he/she is required to be regularised. (4) he/she is not retiree from any State or Central Government Service or any local body, Public Sector Undertaking or Autonomous Body in or outside the State; (5) his/her work and conduct has remained satisfactory during the period he/she worked as adhoc appointee and no disciplinary proceedings or vigilance case is pending against him/her; and (6) he/she has completed seven years continous period of working as adhoc employee; (7) the orders of regularisation of adhocees will be issued by the concerned administrative departments after getting the cases screened/cleared by the Committee constituted for regularisation of daily rated workers. (8) the, regularisation will apply only in respect of appointments made against direct quota posts. It is further ordered that : (a) All Administrative Departments shall communicate to the Services Selection Board the particulars of all such posts occupied by the adhoc appointees which stand already referred to the SSRB and inform the Board that all such posts shall be deemed to have been withdrawn from it after particulars of such posts are received by them. (b) henceforth no department shall make adhoc appointment without explicit approval of the HCM in coordination as required in terms of Rule 14 of the J&K CCA Rules, 1956. Any officer found to have violated the rules shall be dealt with severely. (c) in respect of all cases of Gazetted Officers appointed on adhoc basis the posts may be referred immediately to the Public Service Commission, if not already done, after, however, seeking prior clearance from the standing Screening Committee constituted vide Government Order No.129-F of 2001 dated 7.4.2001. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir." 65. It is apparent from the aforesaid Government order that the Government has decided that all ad-hoc appointees holding non-gazetted posts, appointed from time to time beyond 29th December, 1988 till 6th November, 2001 and who are still in service and fulfill the conditions laid down in the said order, are to be considered for regularisation after completing seven years of continuous service from the date of their respective dates of appointment, even withdrawing the post wherever they have been referred to the Service Selection Board. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the intent of the order is that the respondents have to consider the case of those employees also who have completed seven years as ad-hoc appointees ever after 6th November, 2001. 66. At the outset it needs to be mentioned at the Government decision is based on the Judgment of the court passed in a writ petition. The portion of the Judgment quoted in the order suggests that the decision of the court is a judgment in personam. Whether such a judgment could be followed to make a decision in the form of the aforesaid Government Order in face of numerous judgments of the Division Bench and the Supreme Court, some of which have been referred to and quoted in this Judgment. Secondly, the plea of learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be misplaced as the intent of the Government is quite apparent in below quoted para of the order: "Whereas, a number of appointments have also been made on adhoc basis in different Government Department and the Government is of the view that their cases also need be considered in the light of the broad principles discussed by the Honble High Court in its judgment referred to above, i.e., they be also considered after putting in seven years continuous service like daily wagers appointed prior to 31.1.1994". 67. It is clear from the above quoted para that the view of the Government is that only those of the adhocees, who have been engaged beyond 29th December, 1989 and have completed seven years till 6th November, 2001, are entitled to seek consideration. I say so because in the Rules contained in SRO 64 of 1994, governing regularisation of Daily Rated Workers, reference to which has been made in the instant Government order, there is a provision for continuation of the Daily Rated Workers who have been engaged prior to 31.1.1994 and they are entitled to be continued till they complete seven years in the following financial years in terms of Rules thereof. The order dated 6th November, 2001, on which reliance is being placed, does not contain any such provision that any ad-hoc employee appointed prior to 6th November, 2001 has to be allowed to continue till he completes seven years and, accordingly, he is to be regularised on the post held by him. 68. The order dated 6th November, 2001, on which reliance is being placed, does not contain any such provision that any ad-hoc employee appointed prior to 6th November, 2001 has to be allowed to continue till he completes seven years and, accordingly, he is to be regularised on the post held by him. 68. As shown above, it is the consistent view of the courts - the Apex Court, the Division Bench of this Court as also the learned Single Judges, barring the judgment in Bashir Ahmad Malik v. State of J&K and others- that if ad-hoc appointment is made dehors rules, such appointment cannot be regularised. The Government order dated 6th November, 2001 will come to the aid of those petitioners only whose appointments have been made observing the mandate of law contained in Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1956. This Government order cannot be taken as an instrument to ignore the mandate of Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1956 and the law settled by the Supreme Court and this court in relation to regularisation of ad-hoc appointments. Wherever the appointments of petitioners are dehors rules they are illegal. The court has no jurisdiction to extend the period of ad-hoc appointment which is the province of the respondents only in terms of Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1956. 69. So far as the plea of the learned counsel for the respondents that some of the petitioners are continuing on fake orders is concerned, the respondents shall hold enquiry with regard to the genuineness/fakeness of the appointments orders and, after holding such enquiry, if the appointment is found fake, such petitioners shall have no right to continue. On the other hand, if the appointment is found genuine, his appointment and continuation shall be governed by the observations and directions contained in this judgment. 70. On the other hand, if the appointment is found genuine, his appointment and continuation shall be governed by the observations and directions contained in this judgment. 70. For the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions : (i) that the Government and the concerned authorities will refer all the posts presently occupied by the petitioners to the Service Selection Board by the end of November, 2002; (ii) the Board will notify/advertise these posts by the end of January, 2003 and complete the selection process by the end of June, 2003; (iii) All the petitioners herein shall be at liberty to seek consideration for selection in response to such advertisement issued by the Board; (iv) That the Board, while considering eligible candidates for selection, shall take into consideration the experience gained by the petitioner vis-a-vis their respective posts; (v) In the event the petitioners/any petitioner succeeds in the selection process, he shall be appointed on the post occupied by him or against the post he is selected; (vi) if any of the petitioners fails to make the grade or is rendered ineligible to compete in the selection process, the Government/concerned competent authorities shall be at liberty to pass such orders as the rules would warrant; (vii) As on the date the posts are advertised, if any petitioner is found to have crossed the age bar, the Government shall be free to consider his/her case for grant of relaxation in the age bar; (viii) till the selection process is completed and appointments consequent thereto are made, the petitioners shall be allowed to continue on their respective posts; (ix) these directions shall not be applicable to those of the petitioners whose appointments, in an enquiry, have been, or shall be, found fake; (x) if any post is not referred to the Service Selection Board by the concerned/appointing authority, as directed, such an inaction of the party or any such officer shall be treated as misconduct and dereliction of duty and the Government shall proceed against such officer under rules.