Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 721 (JK)

Faheen v. University Of Kashmir

2013-12-12

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY

body2013
1. This writ petition, having been finally heard, is admitted to hearing. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing Advertisement Notice dated 20.07.2007 whereby the migrant post of Lecturer in the Department of Media Education and Research Centre (MERC), University of Kashmir, presently held by the petitioner, has been notified for temporary appointment. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize his appointment against the said post. The factual matrix of the case, as put forth by the petitioner, is summarized below: 3. Pursuant to an advertisement notice dated 21.08.1990 issued by the University, the petitioner, after participating in the selection process, was appointed on ad hoc basis as Lecturer in Media Education and Research Centre, University of Kashmir, vide order no. F(Apptt-Adhoc Lecturers) Adm/KU/91 dated 04.04.1991. Eleven other persons were also appointed by the same order. It is borne out from the aforesaid appointment order that the ad hoc appointments were to last for six months or till the posts were filled up substantively or till the leave vacancies were available / migrant teachers rejoined, whichever would occur earlier. It appears that the petitioner and the similarly appointed persons were continued on their respective posts beyond the period of six months as fixed in the aforesaid order of appointment. However, in the 1994, apprehending his ouster and replacement by similar arrangement, the petitioner along with some similarly placed appointees of the University filed writ petition, SWP no. 1513/1994 seeking restraint against termination of their ad hoc appointments against such posts with prayer for a direction to allow them to continue on their respective posts and to regularize their services against the posts held by them. In that petition, a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an interim direction on 21.12.1994 to the effect that the petitioners shall be allowed to continue as Lecturers in their respective departments till further orders from the Court. It was also directed that they shall be paid their salaries and no breaks shall be given in their services. 4. Pursuant to the above, the petitioner continued to work as Lecturer in the Media Education and Research Centre, University of Kashmir. Meanwhile, it appears that, vide order dated 16.12.1999, the services of the petitioner as ad hoc Lecturer were terminated. 4. Pursuant to the above, the petitioner continued to work as Lecturer in the Media Education and Research Centre, University of Kashmir. Meanwhile, it appears that, vide order dated 16.12.1999, the services of the petitioner as ad hoc Lecturer were terminated. The petitioner filed writ petition, SWP no, 512/2000, challenging the aforesaid termination order. The writ petition was allowed by the Court vide judgment dated 04.12.2003 in the following manner: "In view of the above, this petition, after being admitted to hearing, is allowed. The impugned order of termination is hereby quashed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service. Quashment of the impugned order will not prevent the respondents from initiating action against the petitioner in accordance with the rules, if they so desire." It also appears that the University filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Writ Court, which was, however dismissed. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated and he continued on the post. 5. Meanwhile, the bunch of writ petitions, filed by numerous persons appointed on ad hoc basis against the vacancies which had been caused in various Government Departments, organizations and the University on account of migration of holders thereof and came to be popularly known as migrant vacancies / posts, were referred to and disposed of by a Full Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.06.2001 on a statement made by the learned Advocate General and with consent of the learned counsel for the respective petitioners, providing as under: "(i) The State Government shall allow all the petitioners appointed against migrant vacancies to continue till an appropriate scheme for their regularization is formulated, or till the concerned migrant employees return to their duties in Kashmir Valley, whichever happens earlier. (ii) In the event of any of the migrant vacancy post becoming a clear vacancy post on account, or any such post having already become a clear vacancy post, those petitioners, who are already working on those migrant vacancy posts, shall be considered for regularization on such posts in accordance with law. (ii) In the event of any of the migrant vacancy post becoming a clear vacancy post on account, or any such post having already become a clear vacancy post, those petitioners, who are already working on those migrant vacancy posts, shall be considered for regularization on such posts in accordance with law. (iii) In the event any of the petitioners is required to give up the job due to the return of the migrant to the Valley or for any other reason (except in disciplinary proceedings), the order of his ouster shall not be given effect to for a period of one month to enable the petitioner concerned to avail of such remedy as may be available to him under the law including approaching this Court." 6. The grievance projected by the petitioner in this petition is that the University has issued Advertisement Notice no. F.10 (Apptt-Gen) RC/KU dated 20.07.2007 calling upon interested candidates to participate in the process of selection for the posts of Lecturers / Professors in various disciplines, including the post of Lecturer in Media Education and Research Centre held by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the said advertisement notice in this petition to the extent the post held by him has been put to advertisement and is sought to be filled up by replacing him by yet another ad hoc arrangement. 7. The petitioner has primarily raised the following pleas: first, that his status as Lecturer in Media Education and Research Centre, University of Kashmir and his right to regularization on that post stands protected by the judgment of the Court passed in his writ petition, SWP no. 512/2000, and the order dated 28.06.2001 passed by the Full Court whereby the bunch of writ petitions, including SWP 1513/1994 filed by him in collaboration with some other similarly placed appointees of the University, were disposed of; second, that the University has regularized the services of similarly placed appointees and / or appointed them on substantive basis, ignoring the claims of the petitioner and, thereby, discriminated him as against similarly placed persons; third, that the respondents are seeking to substitute the petitioner again by making an ad hoc appointment on the said post, which is impermissible in law and, therefore violative of the rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 8. The respondents have filed their reply. 8. The respondents have filed their reply. In paragraph 02 thereof it is admitted that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on ad hoc basis after being interviewed by the local selection committee constituted for the purpose. In paragraph 08, it is stated that the University has not received any copy of the judgment passed in the earlier writ petition, SWP no. 1513/1994 from the petitioner. In paragraph no. 09 thereof, it is admitted that the respondent University has initiated the process of filling up of the two migrant posts available in Media Education Research Centre vide advertisement notice dated 20.07.2007. It is, however, stated that the petitioner also applied pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement notice, but he was not called for interview which was held on 22.10.2007 as he did not possess the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement notice. It is further stated in the reply that the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court has no application to the present case as the same was passed in favour of those employees who had been appointed on ad hoc basis by the State Government in different departments and had filed writ petitions for their continuation. Not only that, the said judgment was passed on the basis of concessions extended by the Government. It is denied that any similarly situated candidates have been regularized, who were appointed as Lecturers on ad hoc basis in different departments / Centres of the University on the recommendations of the local selection committee. It is stated that only those candidates were subsequently appointed on regular basis who were selected by the duly constituted selection committee provided under the provisions of the Kashmir and Jammu Universities Act, 1969 (as amended) after the posts were advertised at national level. It is denied that any discriminatory treatment has been meted out to the petitioner. 9. After the respondents filed their reply, the petitioner filed an application, IA no. 579/2013, seeking permission to place on record copies of orders issued by the University to demonstrate that similarly placed Lecturers as the petitioner, who had been appointed on migrant posts alongwith him on 04.04.1991 and even thereafter in other departments, including the Department of Law of the University, were later appointed on regular basis. The said application has been allowed in terms of Court order dated 05.04.2013, Vide yet another application, IA no. The said application has been allowed in terms of Court order dated 05.04.2013, Vide yet another application, IA no. 3824/2013, the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit on 02.12.2013 stating therein that the petitioner handed over a copy of the judgment dated 28.06.2001 passed by the Full Bench of this Court in SWP no. 1513/1994 along with other documents to the respondents in the second week of June, 2002. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the matter. 11. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the parties hereto, it may be mentioned here that when this petition first came up for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 19.10.2007, the Court passed the following interim order, which was continued thereafter from time to time: "Notice in the CMP also. In the meanwhile, declining to stay the process of selection list in ex-parte, it is provided that till next date before the Bench, petitioner shall not be ousted subject to objections of the other side. Order to be communicated in its entirety." It also needs a mention here that on 15.11.2008, a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an order directing Mr. Kawoosa, learned counsel for the respondents to inform the Court whether the post, held by the petitioner was to be filled up on substantive basis or on ad hoc / temporary basis. In response, Professor S. Fayaz Ahmacl, Registrar, University of Kashmir, filed a supplementary affidavit on 11.12.2008 stating therein, "that the post of Lecturer in the MERC was filled up on temporary basis against a migrant vacancy in the MERC subject to ratification by the Syndicate". A copy of order dated 08.12.2007 passed by the University, too, was appended to the supplementary affidavit. The said order indicates that one Malik Zahra Khalid of Alfazal Colony Peerbagh, Budgam was appointed as Lecturer purely on temporary basis against one of the two migrant vacancies advertised in terms of the impugned advertisement notice in the Media Education Research Centre in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-275-13500 plus allowances as admissible under rules. 12. The said order indicates that one Malik Zahra Khalid of Alfazal Colony Peerbagh, Budgam was appointed as Lecturer purely on temporary basis against one of the two migrant vacancies advertised in terms of the impugned advertisement notice in the Media Education Research Centre in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-275-13500 plus allowances as admissible under rules. 12. The supplementary affidavit so filed by none other than the Registrar of the University read with University order dated 08.12.2007 makes it axiomatic that the impugned advertisement notice had been issued with the sole object of making ad hoc / temporary appointments against the two migrant posts in the Media Education and Research Centre (MERC), University of Kashmir. Admittedly, one of the two posts was, and continues to be, held by the petitioner. It is not disputed that he had been found suitable for appointment on the said post by the selection committee way back in 1991 when he was appointed thereon on ad hoc basis in a due process of selection held pursuant to an advertisement notice issued in that behalf. It is not made clear what prompted the respondents to think of substituting the petitioner by resort to yet another ad hoc arrangement on the post for which purpose the impugned notification was issued. An ad hocee cannot be substituted by another ad hoc arrangement, particularly so when the ad hocee has undergone due process of selections undertaken in that behalf. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118 , where, in paragraph 46, it was laid down that, "an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority". In the instant case, it is established that the advertisement notice was issued only for making ad hoc / temporary appointment on the posts in question and, in fact, the respondents have filled up the other post by making temporary appointment of one Malik Zahra Khalid. No reasons, whatsoever, have been disclosed anywhere as would render some semblance of reasonableness to the action of the respondents to resort to such a course. No reasons, whatsoever, have been disclosed anywhere as would render some semblance of reasonableness to the action of the respondents to resort to such a course. Obviously, the action of the respondents suffers from a vice of unreasonableness and arbitrariness, and is, therefore, hit by the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The impugned advertisement notice to that extent, therefore, is not sustainable in law and deserves to be declared as such. 13. Now, coming to the crucial question of regularization of the petitioner's service, at the hearing of this petition Mr. Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly, submitted that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis on migrant vacancy after having been found duly qualified and suitable in a due process of selection conducted pursuant to an advertisement notice issued by the University in that behalf. This factual position is neither denied by the respondents, nor controverted by Mr. Kawoosa, learned counsel for the respondents. In fact, it is admitted by the respondents in paragraph 02 of their reply that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on ad hoc basis after being interviewed by the local selection committee constituted for making ad hoc appointments. To that extent, therefore, there is no dispute. 14. The second point, rather second limb of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that his status as Lecturer and right to regularization stands protected by the judgment dated 04.12.2003 passed in his writ petition, SWP no. 512/2000 which was upheld by the Division Bench, and the order dated 28.06.2001 passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the Bunch of writ petitions. It is the case of the petitioner that the writ petition, SWP no. 1513/1994, filed by him alongwith others, was also disposed of pursuant to the same order dated 28.06.2001. Though the respondents in paragraphs 08 and 10 of their reply have stated that copy of the said order was not received by the University from the petitioner, the petitioner on the other hand in his supplementary affidavit accompanying CMP no. 3824/2013 has stated that "the applicant has handed over the copy of the judgment dated 28th of June 2001 passed in the aforesaid writ petition of the petitioner, alongwith other documents, to the Respondents in second week of June, 2002. 15. 3824/2013 has stated that "the applicant has handed over the copy of the judgment dated 28th of June 2001 passed in the aforesaid writ petition of the petitioner, alongwith other documents, to the Respondents in second week of June, 2002. 15. It may be mentioned here that, pursuant to order dated 28.04.2008 passed by one of the Coordinate Benches of this Court, the Office has placed the record of writ petition, SWP no. 1513/1994, along this petition. Perusal of the minutes thereof reveals that, though the same had also been placed before the larger Bench pursuant to the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, yet has ultimately been disposed of vide order dated 04.12.2003 by the learned Single Judge in the following terms: "In view of the judgment dated 4.12.03 passed in SWP No.512/2000, this petition also stands disposed of." It may be recapitulated here that SWP no. 512/2000 was filed by the petitioner, primarily, challenging his termination order dated 16.12.1999; whereas in SWP no. 1513/1994, the petitioner had, among other reliefs, sought the relief of regularization. The relief of regularization was neither prayed for in SWP no. 512/2000, nor was any such relief granted to the petitioner in that petition. In any case, the writ petition, SWP no. 1513/1994, having been disposed of separately in terms of aforesaid order dated 04.12.2003, it is not correct to say that the writ petition, SWP no. 1513/1994, was disposed of in terms of the Full Bench order of this Court in the bunch of writ petitions on 28.06.2001. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the respondents have appointed most of the ad hocees on regular basis which benefit has been denied to the petitioner. Reference in this connection was made by him to the various orders passed by the University placed on record by the petitioner in terms of CMP no.579/2013. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, having been appointed on ad hoc basis pursuant to a due process of selections conducted by the University in that behalf way back in 1991, has a right to be regularized on the post, especially so on the analogy of such other appointees. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, having been appointed on ad hoc basis pursuant to a due process of selections conducted by the University in that behalf way back in 1991, has a right to be regularized on the post, especially so on the analogy of such other appointees. Inviting the attention of this Court to order dated 04.04.1991, where under he, alongwith 11 other persons, was appointed on ad hoc basis, the learned counsel submitted that three of the appointees mentioned therein and figuring at serial nos. 2, 3 and 8 have been appointed on regular basis in terms of University Order issued under endorsement no. F.10(App-Gen.)Adm./T.W. dated 12.03.1997. Similarly, the appointees figuring at serial nos. 1 and 10 have been appointed on regular basis vide University Order issued under endorsement no. F.10(Apptt- Gen)Adm/KU/2001 dated 08.09.2001. 17. The learned counsel also referred to University order issued under endorsement no. F(Apptt-Adhoc/Lects.)Adm/TW dated 09.05.1995 whereby 40 persons were appointed on ad hoc basis in different departments of the University. Eleven of these ad hocees, figuring at serial nos. 04, 05, 08, 09, 10, 12, 14, 31, 32, 33 and 36 of the aforesaid order have subsequently been appointed on regular basis vide University order dated 12.03.1997 referred to hereinabove. Further, the candidate figuring at serial no.26 of the aforesaid order, too, has subsequently been appointed on regular basis subject to approval of the Syndicate in Media Education Research Centre in terms of order dated 22.10.2001. Again, vide the same order dated 22.10.2001, the candidate, namely, Sabeha Mufti, who had been appointed on ad hoc basis alongwith petitioner and figured at serial no.5 of order dated 04.04.1991, has been placed in the senior scale of Rs. 10000-325-15200. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been picked up for hostile discrimination and denied such benefit without any rhyme, cause or justification. The learned counsel further submitted that his ad hoc appointment way back in 1991 was ordered only when he was found eligible and duly qualified by the concerned Selection Committee and, now, after having rendered 22 years' of ad hoc service, he cannot be denied the benefit of regularization. The learned counsel further submitted that his ad hoc appointment way back in 1991 was ordered only when he was found eligible and duly qualified by the concerned Selection Committee and, now, after having rendered 22 years' of ad hoc service, he cannot be denied the benefit of regularization. Relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 ; and State of M. P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 SCC 575, the learned counsel submitted that there may be some irregularity in the initial appointment of the petitioner, but it was not illegal, therefore, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (supra), the respondents are bound to regularize the service of the petitioner. 18. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the analogy sought to be drawn by the petitioner is misplaced for the reason that regular appointments, referred to and relied upon by the petitioner, have been made after the candidates underwent the regular process of selections conducted at all India level by the concerned Selection Committees. He further submitted that since the initial ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was made without following the procedure laid down under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the Rules governing the field, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, he cannot seek regularization in service. The learned counsel in this regard cited and relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Surinder Prasad Tiwari v. U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, (2006) 7 SCC 684 ; Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC 1806 ; Accounts Officer (A&I), APSRTC v. K. K Ramana, AIR 2007 SC 1166 ; and Union of India v. Vartak Labour Union, (2011) 4 SCC 200 . 19. Let the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that act hoc appointees similarly placed with the petitioner have been appointed on regular basis in pursuance of a selection process conducted on all India level be examined. The University order dated 12.03.1997 whereby most of the ad hoc employees have been appointed on regular basis does not even remotely show that the said order was issued in pursuance of any selection process. In this regard, the language used in the order assumes importance. The University order dated 12.03.1997 whereby most of the ad hoc employees have been appointed on regular basis does not even remotely show that the said order was issued in pursuance of any selection process. In this regard, the language used in the order assumes importance. It reads as under: "Sanction is accorded to the appointment of the following on the posts and in the Departments / Units indicated against each below in the pay scale of Rs.2200-75-2800-100-4000 plus usual allowances as admissible under rules on probation for one year." The respondents have not produced any record, muchless any advertisement notice or the proceedings of the Selection Committee(s) to show that these appointments were, in fact, made pursuant to a selection process conducted at all India level. On the other hand, the order further reveals that by the same order, the University has also accorded sanction to the appointment of three other persons on temporary basis in Management Studies, Linguistics and Computer Centre of the University. Appointments on temporary basis could not have been made pursuant to a selection process held at all India level. Paragraph II (a) of the order states that "the other terms and conditions governing the appointments of S. Nos. 1-18 will be issued separately". If the appointments had been made pursuant to a selection process conducted at all India level, the appointees would be governed by the normal terms and conditions of service as applicable to such other regularly appointed staff of the University, and there would be no occasion to fix any other terms and conditions to govern them, mores so, to be notified separately. 20. It may also be observed here that the University orders dated 08.09.2001 and 22.10.2001, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, clearly mention the words "as recommended by the Selection Committees", but the order dated 12.03.1997 does not state so. If the order dated 12.03.1997 had been issued pursuant to any such selection process, what prevented the University authorities to mention such an important and vital fact in the order as it has done in the case of other orders mentioned above. It is reiterated that no records have been produced to support the contention as put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is reiterated that no records have been produced to support the contention as put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents. That being the position, a legal and reasonable inference is available to the Court that persons similarly placed with the petitioner have been appointed on regular basis ignoring the claims of the petitioner. 21. Now, let the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments cited and relied upon by the learned counsel on either side, be examined. In paragraph 53 in Secy., State of Karnataka v, Umadevi (3) (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under: "One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S. V. Narayanappa, R. N. Nanjundappa and B. N. Nagbarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any, already made, but not subjudice need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme." 22. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any, already made, but not subjudice need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme." 22. The distinction between "irregular appoint" and "illegal appointment" has been explained by the Supreme Court in paragraph 12 of State of M. P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma (supra) in the following words: "The question which, thus, arises for consideration, would be: Is there any distinction between `irregular appointment' and `illegal appointment'? The distinction between the two terms is apparent. In the event the appointment is made in total disregard of the constitutional scheme as also the recruitment rules framed by the employer, which is "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the recruitment would be an illegal one; whereas there may be cases where, although, substantial compliance with the constitutional scheme as also the rules have been made, the appointment may be irregular in the sense that some provisions of some rules might not have been strictly adhered to." 23. In the instant case, it is the admitted case that the petitioner alongwith others, was selected and appointed on ad hoc basis in consequence of the selection process initiated pursuant to advertisement notice dated 21.08.1990. He could not have been selected and appointed unless he had been found duly qualified and suitable for appointment on the post. Therefore, it is not a case where the appointment of the petitioner had been made in total disregard of the constitutional scheme or the recruitment rules. On the other hand, the post having been put to public, it can safely be said that there has been a substantial compliance with the constitutional scheme. However, the selections may not have been made on all India level, that would not render the selection and consequent appointment of the petitioner as illegal. It can, at best, be termed as irregular. 24. However, the selections may not have been made on all India level, that would not render the selection and consequent appointment of the petitioner as illegal. It can, at best, be termed as irregular. 24. In Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (supra), the Supreme Court clearly directed that the question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by the Court and in that context directed the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities to take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed persons, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts. There is no dispute that the petitioner has by now put in about 22 years' of ad hoc service in the University. The condition that such appointees should not have been continued under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals, as laid down in the judgment, would not strictly be attracted in the present case. This condition in the judgment was laid in context of the observations made in paragraph 14 thereof. It would be fruitful to quote paragraph 14 of the judgment which reads as under: "During the course of the arguments, various orders of the courts either interim or final were brought to our notice. The purport of those orders more or less was the issue of directions for continuation or absorption without referring to the legal position obtaining. Learned counsel for the State of Karnataka submitted that chaos has been created by such orders without reference to the legal principles and it is time that this Court settled the law once and for all so that in case the Court finds that such orders should not be made, the courts, especially, the High Courts would be precluded from issuing such directions or passing such orders. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents based on the various orders passed by the High Court or by the Government pursuant to the directions of the Court also highlights the need for settling the law by this Court. The bypassing of the constitutional scheme cannot be perpetuated by the passing of orders without dealing with and deciding the validity of such orders on the touchstone of constitutionality. The bypassing of the constitutional scheme cannot be perpetuated by the passing of orders without dealing with and deciding the validity of such orders on the touchstone of constitutionality. While- approaching the questions falling for our decision, it is necessary to bear this in mind and to bring about certainty in the matter of public employment. The argument on behalf of some of the respondents is that this Court having once directed regularization in Dharwad case all those appointed temporarily at any point of time would be entitled to be regularized since otherwise it would be discrimination between those similarly situated and in that view, all appointments made on daily wages, temporarily or contractually, must be directed to be regularized. Acceptance of this argument would mean that appointments made otherwise than by a regular process of selection would become the order of the day completely jettisoning the constitutional scheme of appointment. This argument also highlights the need for this Court to formally lay down the law on the question and ensure certainty in dealings relating to public employment. The very divergence in approach in this Court, the so-called equitable approach made in some, as against those decisions which have insisted on the rules being followed, also justifies a firm decision by this Court one way or the other. It is necessary to put an end to uncertainty and clarify the legal position emerging from the constitutional scheme, leaving the High Courts to follow necessarily, the law thus laid down." In the instant case, appointment of the petitioner on ad hoc basis, apart from being pursuant to an advertisement notice and selection process conducted, was made in peculiar circumstances prevailing in the Valley when a vacuum was created in almost all the governmental departments, services and institutions which necessitated making of ad hoc appointments to put these services etc. back on their rails. It was in that context that the Full Bench of this Court in the bunch of writ petitions on the same subject, disposed of vide order dated 28.06.2001, had directed the State to formulate a scheme to regularize such appointees on their respective posts. No doubt the petitioner had approached this Court to seek intervention, but that was against replacement of such ad hoc appointment by another ad hoc appointment. No doubt the petitioner had approached this Court to seek intervention, but that was against replacement of such ad hoc appointment by another ad hoc appointment. In fact, the advertisement notice issued by the respondent-University on 20.07.2007, as mentioned earlier, too, was issued, only to make temporary, appointment against the post. This has been stated by none other than the Registrar of the University in his supplementary affidavit dated 11.12.2008 filed in response to the specific query of the Court raised in that behalf vide order dated 15.11.2008. Further more, the writ petition, SWP no.1513/1994 of the petitioner stood disposed of vide, order dated 4.12.2003 and the University, thereafter has issued orders placed on record of this petition at pages 15 to 18 appointing and continuing the petitioner on ad hoc basis from time to time. Strictly speaking, it is not a case where the respondents wanted to adhere to the constitutional scheme and the rules governing such appointments, and were prevented from doing so by intervention of the Court. Further, it is not a case where the petitioner had entered into the service by reason of any machination or through backdoor. In that view of the matter, I think that the condition imposed by the Supreme Court in Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (supra), "but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals", would not be attracted. 25. Now, the Supreme Court in Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (supra), had made a specific direction to the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities to take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed persons who had worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts. It is nobody's case that the University of Kashmir is not an instrumentality of the State, or the post held by the petitioner was not a duly sanctioned post. As on the date of passing of the aforesaid judgment by the Supreme Court, the petitioner had been holding the post for about 15 years. Therefore, the respondents were, and are, bound to abide by the direction of the Supreme Court. The other three judgments cited and relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents do not alter the case. 26. Therefore, the respondents were, and are, bound to abide by the direction of the Supreme Court. The other three judgments cited and relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents do not alter the case. 26. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record a copy of University order dated 14.08.1996 whereby, under clause 4 thereof, it has been ordered that all SROs issued by State Government from time to time shall ipso facto be applied to the University employees. However, no SRO on the subject has been brought to the notice of the Court. Reference to the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 in that behalf is irrelevant, since it is not an SRO, but is an enactment of the State Legislature. 27. For all what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed, however, without any order as to costs. The impugned advertisement notice dated 20.7.2007 insofar as the same relates to the post held by the petitioner, is quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization from a prospective date, in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in paragraph 53 of the judgment in Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (supra), quoted in this judgment, and the observations made hereinabove. 28. The connected CMPs shall, accordingly, stand disposed of.