Judgment : 1. This writ petition, by way of Public Interest Litigation, is filed by a retired Assistant Engineer of the State who claims to be a public spirited person. The contention of the petitioner is that in the State of Jammu and Kashmir about 7893 backdoor appointments were made in about ten departments which led to issuance of Circular No. 09-GAD of 2013 dated 26.03.2013 calling upon the authorities to strictly observe the restrictions as contained in Section 14 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 ( hereafter referred to as the Act?). 2. The action of the respondents in appointing persons through backdoor is negate the Constitutional legal rights of the persons who are residents of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, the said action of the authorities is un-constitutional, arbitrary and discriminatory. The illegal appointments/ engagements of various persons were made and some of whom were not possessing the requisite qualifications. The petitioner has stated various instances in his affidavit and ultimately prayed to issue a writ of certiorari so as to hold the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, Act No. XIV of 2010 as ultra vires to the Constitution of India being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and to cancel the appointments made illegally through backdoor methods. His second prayer is for issuing writ of mandamus directing the respondents to implement and follow in letter and spirit Circular No. 9-GAD of 2013 dated 26.03.2013 and take appropriate action against the authorities/ officers who made various illegal appointments/ engagements all over the State. The third prayer of the petitioner is for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to make any such temporary engagements henceforth. His fourth prayer is for issuing directions to the respondents to spell out a transparent and clear policy in terms of ratio of strength at the minimum as per requirement to make appointments on regular basis and on adhoc, consolidated, casual or daily rated workers so as to justify the utilization of money from public exchequer. 3. Mr. His fourth prayer is for issuing directions to the respondents to spell out a transparent and clear policy in terms of ratio of strength at the minimum as per requirement to make appointments on regular basis and on adhoc, consolidated, casual or daily rated workers so as to justify the utilization of money from public exchequer. 3. Mr. S. C. Mansotra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of arguments submitted that the petitioner having not impleaded the persons already appointed/engaged and they having been in service for certain years, he is not pressing the prayer to cancel their appointments and the action sought for against the officers who have made the illegal engagements/appointments so far is also not pressed as the officers were not impleaded as party respondents and he is more concerned with the remaining portion of the prayer, particularly, with regard to appointments hereafter to be made either on adhoc, consolidated, casual, daily rated or regular basis. 4. Mr. Gagan Basotra, learned Sr. AAG, in answer to the said submission, produced an order passed by the Government in Government Order No. 43-F of 2015 dated 17.03.2015 and submitted that the authority to engage Casual/ Seasonal Labourers to various departments through Government orders in Order No. 239-F of 2005 dated 29.01.2005, Government Order No. 138-F of 2013 dated 23.05.2013 and Government Order No. 105-PD of 2010 dated 25.10.2010, or any other order permitting them to engage any casual/seasonal labourers was withdrawn with immediate effect and, therefore, the third prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition, namely, directing the respondents not to make any such temporary appointments/ engagements henceforth, is already acceded by the Government. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture submitted that any appointment to be made either on daily wage, adhoc, consolidated or regular basis must be strictly in compliance with the equality and equal opportunity of public employment as enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as well as Section 14 and 16 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution and the said issue has already been decided by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, as early as in the year 1996 reiterated in several other decisions and, therefore, the said prayer made by the petitioner, seeking directions, is no longer res integra. He has also cited various judgments in support of his contention. 6. He has also cited various judgments in support of his contention. 6. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General was not in a position to dispute the said proposition of law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court while appointing persons in any of the government organization, department or institution funded by the government either fully or partially and submitted that appropriate directions may be given and the State Government will follow the same. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. The appointments/engagements on casual/ seasonal basis in various departments by governmental authorities hereafter is not possible in view of Government Order issued in order No. 43-F of 2015 dated 17.03.2015 and the said order is extracted herein below:- Subject:- Imposition of complete ban on engagement of Casual/Seasonal Labourers (CSLWs) in Government Departments/State owned PSUs. Government Order No. 43 - F of 2015 As approved by the Competent Authority, it is hereby ordered that authority to engage casual/Seasonal Labourers to various Departments as delegated vide Government orders mentioned below or any other order is withdrawn with immediate effect. 1. Government Order No. 239-F of 2005 dated 29.01.2005. 2. Government Order No. 138-F of 2013 dated 23.05.2013. 3. Government Order No. 105-PD of 2010 dated 25.10.2010. By order of the Government of Jammu & Kashmir. 8. The State Government though issued such instructions not to engage any person, definitely situation may arise to engage persons for attending emergency duties and routine duties for some time, for which the State must have clear guidelines for selecting/appointing persons in various cadres including Daily rated/ Casual/seasonal or adhoc basis. The fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens to get equal opportunities in public employment and equal protection of laws is guaranteed and all appointments made in public sector undertakings/ State Government departments or partly or fully aided Government institutions must be strict in complying with the said guaranteed rights. The issue as to whether the Government department or agencies or instrumentalities can restrict the candidates sponsored through the employment exchange alone for selection to public employment was considered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1996) 6 SCC 216 ( Excise Superintendent, Malkalatnam, Krishna District, A.P. v. K. B. N. Visweshwara Rao and others). The issue as to whether the Government department or agencies or instrumentalities can restrict the candidates sponsored through the employment exchange alone for selection to public employment was considered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1996) 6 SCC 216 ( Excise Superintendent, Malkalatnam, Krishna District, A.P. v. K. B. N. Visweshwara Rao and others). The said decision was rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India bearing in mind the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, particularly, Section 4(1) of the said Act. In the said decision, the Hon?ble Supreme Court (Three Judge Bench,) in paragraph 6, held thus:- It is common knowledge that many a candidates are unable to have the manes sponsored, though their names are either registered or are waiting to be registered in the employment exchange with the result that the choice of selection is restricted to only such of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the employment exchange. Under these circumstances, many a deserving candidate are deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the state. Better view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning Departments for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation as per requisition. In addition the appropriate Department or undertaking or establishment should call for the manes by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news-bulletins: and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates. 9. Again the said issue came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2003) 10 SCC 276 ( Suresh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others) in respect of recruitment of 1600 Police Constables in the State of Haryana. In the said case, selection of candidates was made only from the list of candidates sponsored by the employment exchanges. The Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered to conduct fresh selection by issuing re- advertisement calling for applications to fill up those vacancies and the selected candidates were allowed to continue till then. 10. In the said case, selection of candidates was made only from the list of candidates sponsored by the employment exchanges. The Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered to conduct fresh selection by issuing re- advertisement calling for applications to fill up those vacancies and the selected candidates were allowed to continue till then. 10. In Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1165 , Hon’ble the Supreme Court held thus: The appointment to any post under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement has been made inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding of selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted committee whose members are fair and impartial, through a written examination or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of candidates who have applied in response to the advertisement made Any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution.... (Emphasis added) 11. The principles to be adopted in the matter of public appointments have been formulated by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd., Bhopal v. Nanuram Yadav & Ors., (2007) 8 SCC 264 as under: (1) The appointments made without following the appropriate procedure under the rules/government circulars and without advertisement or inviting applications from the open market would amount to breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (2) Regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment. (3) An appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute and in particular, ignoring the minimum educational qualification and other essential qualification would be wholly illegal. Such illegality cannot be cured by taking recourse to regularisation. (4) Those who come by back-door should go through that door. (5) No regularisation is permissible in exercise of the statutory power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of India if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory rules. (6) The court should not exercise its jurisdiction on misplaced sympathy. (4) Those who come by back-door should go through that door. (5) No regularisation is permissible in exercise of the statutory power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of India if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory rules. (6) The court should not exercise its jurisdiction on misplaced sympathy. (7) If the mischief played is so widespread and all pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show-cause notice to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. (8) When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place and the entire selection has to be set aside. 12. In the decision reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 ( State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty) also the same issue again came up for consideration and in paragraphs 35 and 36, it was held thus:- “35. At one time this Court had been of the view that calling the names from Employment Exchange would curb to certain extent the menace of nepotism and corruption in public employment. But, later on, came to the conclusion that some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly. Even if the names of candidates are requisitioned from Employment Exchange, in addition thereto it is mandatory on the part of the employer to invite applications from all eligible candidates from the open market by advertising the vacancies in newspapers having wide circulation or by announcement in Radio and Television as merely calling the names from the Employment Exchange does not meet the requirement of the said Article of the Constitution. (Vide: Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi administration, Delhi & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 789 ; State of Haryana & Ors. v. Piara Singh & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 2130 ; Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 216 ; Arun Tewari & Ors. (Vide: Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi administration, Delhi & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 789 ; State of Haryana & Ors. v. Piara Singh & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 2130 ; Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 216 ; Arun Tewari & Ors. v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 331; Binod Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Ram Ashray Mahoto & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 2103 ; National Fertilizers Ltd. & Ors. v. Somvir Singh, AIR 2006 SC 2319; Telecom District Manager & Ors. v. Keshab Deb, (2008) 8 SCC 402 ; State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 65 ; and State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2009) 15 SCC 214 ). 36. Therefore, it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the Employment Exchange or putting a note on the Notice Board etc. that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered. A person employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance of the said Constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to compete on merits. ( Emphasis applied) 13. It is also relevant to cite a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court reported in 2014 (2) SCALE 262 ( Renu and others v. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari and another). In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the above said proposition of law and gave a direction to all the High Courts to comply with the purport of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India while filling up of any vacant post either in the High Court or in the Subordinate Courts throughout India. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the above said proposition of law and gave a direction to all the High Courts to comply with the purport of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India while filling up of any vacant post either in the High Court or in the Subordinate Courts throughout India. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that all posts shall be filled up by issuing advertisement in atleast two newspapers and one of which must be in vernacular language having wide circulation in the respective State, apart from calling for a list from the local employment exchange and any selection made without advertising as prescribed, shall be void ab-initio and would remain unenforceable and in-executable except the appointment on compassionate grounds, as per the Rules applicable. 14. Following the said judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court and in the light of the Constitutional provisions it is held thus: (1) Any appointment, casual, adhoc, temporary/ part time/ regular must be in compliance with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India which is equally applicable as per Section 10 of the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution. If any officer deviates the said principle and give appointment to any person/persons, the same are illegal and the person so appointed will not get any benefit arising out of such illegal appointment/engagement. 15. The petition is disposed of accordingly.