JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. The challenge in this petition is to Order No. 1186-90, dated 08.07.2002 issued by the Director School Education, Jammu, Respondent No. 2 herein (annexure "A" to the writ petition), whereby the case of petitioner for her appointment on regular basis against the post of Junior Assistant has been rejected on the ground that she has already become over-age as on 01.01.1990. The facts as revealed are that on the recommendations of the then Speaker, the then Education Minister ordered appointment of petitioner on ad-hoc basis till the final selection is made by the selection agency. Accordingly, the Additional Secretary to Government, Education Department vide Communication No. Edu/GD/APPTT/85/455, dated 22.04.1985 directed the Director School Education, Jammu to take necessary steps in the light of the order of the then Education Minister. Consequently, vide Order No. 798-80, dated 29.04.1985 the petitioner was posted in Government Higher Secondary School, Basohli on ad hoc basis against a vacant post. The tenure of petitioner was extended from time to time till 15.03.1986 when her services were brought to an end after the issuance of a general Circular by the Government on 13.03.1986, whereby it was ordered that the services of all ad-hocees be terminated. 2. Petitioner challenged the said action of respondents in SWP No. 795/86. The said writ petition came to be allowed by this Court on 25.04.1989 with a direction to the official respondents to treat the petitioner to be in continuous service. Against the said judgment, the official respondents preferred LPA No. 19/1989, which too came to be dismissed on 18.05.1993. It is contended that the petitioner continued to attend the office daily but she was not allowed to mark her attendance. However, it is averred that an amount of Rs. 15,473/- as pay arrears was disbursed to her in the year 1995. 3. It is averred that the petitioner again filed SWP No. 1397/97 before this Court, which came to be disposed of on 04.02.1998 with a direction to the respondents to decide the matter within a period of three months by treating the writ petition as a representation and taking note of Government Order No. 1220-GAD of 1989, dated 11.09.1989. It is contended that the respondents instead of addressing the grievance of petitioner, rejected her case vide Order No. DSEJ/writ/890-95, dated 08.08.1998. 4. It is contended that the respondents instead of addressing the grievance of petitioner, rejected her case vide Order No. DSEJ/writ/890-95, dated 08.08.1998. 4. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner again filed SWP No. 145/1999 in this Court challenging the order dated 08.08.1998 (supra). The said petition came to be allowed on 06.08.2001 with a direction to the respondents to allow the benefit of Government Order No. 1220-GAD of 1989, dated 11.09.1989 to the petitioner. The petitioner was also held entitled to all consequential benefits. 5. It is averred that the respondents instead of implementing the judgment of this Court passed in SWP No. 145/1999 (supra) issued Order No. 1186-90, dated 08.07.2002, impugned herein, whereby the Director School Education, Jammu, rejected the case of petitioner for her appointment on regular basis against the post of Junior Assistant on the ground that she had already become overage as on 01.01.1990. Hence this writ petition. 6. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the judgment passed by this Court in SWP No. 145/1999 has attained finality; therefore, the respondents are legally bound to regularize the services of petitioner in terms of the said judgment. His further contention is that once the petitioner has been held entitled to the benefit of Government Order No. 1220-GAD of 1989, dated 11.09.1989, the respondents cannot raise the plea that that the services of petitioner cannot be regularized as she had already become overage as on 01.01.1990. He further argued that the age of petitioner as on 01.01.1990 was 32 years which was well within the prescribed maximum age. 7. Objections have been filed on behalf of respondents. It has been admitted by the respondents that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on ad-hoc basis in April 1985 and her ad-hoc arrangement was extended from time to time. It has also been admitted by the respondents that the writ Court in SWP No. 795/1986 had directed the respondents to treat the petitioner in continuous service till the regular selection is made by them. It has also been admitted by the RESPONDENTS THAT THE POST OF JUNIOR ASSISTANT REMAINED VACANT FROM 16.03.1986 TO 04.01.1994. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the writ record. 9. Indisputably, the petitioner came to be appointed as a Junior Assistant on ad-hoc basis on 29.04.1985. It has also been admitted by the RESPONDENTS THAT THE POST OF JUNIOR ASSISTANT REMAINED VACANT FROM 16.03.1986 TO 04.01.1994. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the writ record. 9. Indisputably, the petitioner came to be appointed as a Junior Assistant on ad-hoc basis on 29.04.1985. Thereafter she continued to perform her duties against the said post uptil 15.03.1986 when her services were brought to an end after issuance of a general Circular by the Government on 13.03.1986 that the services of all ad-hocees be terminated. However, while quashing the telegraphic communication so far as it pertained to the petitioner, this Court on 25.04.1989 SWP No. 795/86 directed the official respondents to allow her to remain in service, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder. 'As a result of the abovementioned findings the telegraphic communication issued on 13.03.86 is hereby quashed in so far as it pertains to the petitioner and the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner in continuous service till a regular selection is made by the selecting agency. The recruitment board for the district or any selection authority, as the case may be, for the post of Jr. Assistant while making the selection on the said post by the selection committee, the petitioner shall also be allowed to compete subject to her eligibility along with all other eligible candidates. In consequence of the success of the petition, the petitioner shall also be entitled to all her due salary and the reinstatement on the post till selection is made as directed, with no orders as to costs. It also disposes of CMP No. 1564/1986." 10. Against the said judgment, the official respondents preferred LPA (writ) No. 19/1989. However, the same too came to be dismissed on 18.05.1993. The Division Bench while dismissing the appeal had specifically observed that the State-respondents had failed to place any document on record to show that the writ petitioner had been appointed for 89 days only. The State-respondents did not challenge the said order in the higher forum; meaning thereby the order passed in SWP No. 795/86 has attained finality. 11. Since vide judgment/order dated 25.04.1989 passed in SWP No. 795/86 the petitioner had been directed to be treated in continues service till regular selection is made by the selection agency and as the said order has attained finality, the respondents paid an amount of Rs. 11. Since vide judgment/order dated 25.04.1989 passed in SWP No. 795/86 the petitioner had been directed to be treated in continues service till regular selection is made by the selection agency and as the said order has attained finality, the respondents paid an amount of Rs. 15,473/- as pay arrears to the petitioner in the year 1995. 12. Meanwhile, during the aforesaid controversy, the Government issued Order No. 1220-GAD of 1989, dated 11.09.1989 to the effect that any employee who was in service up to 29.12.1988, his case was required to be considered in terms of the said order. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of said order hereunder: "1. All ad-hoc appointees to non-gazetted posts recruited from time to time upto 29.12.1988 who are still in service be treated to have been appointed on regular basis on probation criteria, as the case may be, with effect from the date of issue of this order, dispensing with reference of posts held by them to the Service Selection Board or the District Level Committees in the case of Class-IV posts constituted in pursuance of General Administration Department's Circular No. 64-GAD of 1988, dated 29.12.1988. i......... ii.......... 2. All cases of non-gazetted appointments where an incumbent did not fulfill the prescribed qualification and/or was overaged by more than one year as on the date of ad-hoc appointment shall be submitted to the Chief Minister in coordination for relaxation with sufficient reasons and justification seeking such relaxation. All such cases shall be sent to the General Administration Department in a consolidated manner by each department within a period of one month and no individual case shall be entertained in the General Adm. Deptt." 13. In view of afore-quoted order, this Court in subsequent writ petition, i.e., SWP No. 1397/1997 directed the State-respondents to consider the claim of petitioner in terms of order dated 11.09.1989 (supra). However, the respondents vide Order No. DSEJ/writ/890-95, dated 08.08.1998 rejected the claim of petitioner on the ground that with the appointment of regularly selected candidates, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of order dated 11.09.1989. In the said order the respondents have asserted that the petitioner was treated to be in service up to 18.11.1987. 14. Compelled by the circumstances, the petitioner again filed SWP No. 145/1999 challenging Order No. DSEJ/writ/890-95, dated 08.08.1998. In the said order the respondents have asserted that the petitioner was treated to be in service up to 18.11.1987. 14. Compelled by the circumstances, the petitioner again filed SWP No. 145/1999 challenging Order No. DSEJ/writ/890-95, dated 08.08.1998. The said writ petition came to be allowed by this Court on 06.08.2001 with a direction to the respondents to allow the benefit of Government Order No. 1220-GAD of 1989, dated 11.09.1989 to the petitioner along with all consequential benefits. However, the respondents instead of considering the case of petitioner in terms of order dated 11.09.1989 (supra), issued Order No. 1186-90, dated 08.07.2002, impugned herein, whereby the Director School Education, Jammu, rejected the case of petitioner for regularization of her services against the post of Junior Assistant on the ground that she had already become overage as on 01.01.1990. Relevant portion of impugned order dated 08.07.2002 is reproduced hereunder: "Now therefore in pursuant to the directions passed by this Hon'ble High Court in SWP-145/99, the case of Smt. Kusam Bala was considered in the light of Government Order No. 1220-GAD of 1989, dated 11.9.1989 and after due application of mind and in accordance to rules and regulations, the case of Smt. Kusam Bala is hereby rejected as she has become overage as on 1.1.1990 and the said fact stands admitted by Smt. Kusam Bala herself in the contempt petition filed where the age has been shown as 44 years." 15. It is to be seer, that this Court on 25.04.1989 in SWP No. 795/86 had directed the official respondents "to treat the petitioner in continuous service till a regular selection is made by the selecting agency", which was also upheld by the LPA Bench; meaning thereby the very essence of the Court order was that the petitioner would be treated to be in continuous service without any break against the post of Junior Assistant till the post is filled up by regular selection. 16. Meanwhile, the Government issued Order No. 1220-GAD of 1989, dated 11.09.1989 to the effect that all ad-hoc appointees to non-Gazetted posts recruited from time to time up to 29.12.1988 and who are still in service be treated to have been appointed on regular basis with effect from the date of issue of this order. 16. Meanwhile, the Government issued Order No. 1220-GAD of 1989, dated 11.09.1989 to the effect that all ad-hoc appointees to non-Gazetted posts recruited from time to time up to 29.12.1988 and who are still in service be treated to have been appointed on regular basis with effect from the date of issue of this order. Since the judgment/order passed in SWP No. 795/86 had attained finality, the petitioner was to be treated to have been appointed on regular basis with effect from 11.09.1989. 17. However, the respondents, taking shelter of judgment passed in SWP No. 795/186, rejected the claim of petitioner vide Order No. DSEJ/writ/890-95 dated 08.08.1998 on the ground that with the appointment of regularly selected candidates, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of order dated 11.09.1989; meaning thereby the stand of respondents was that since the posts of Junior Assistant had been filled up by regularly selected candidates, therefore, in terms of the court order there was no reason for the respondents to treat the petitioner to be in continuous service but to terminate the same. In the said order the respondents though have asserted that the petitioner was treated to be in service up to 18.11.1987, but they very intelligently did not mention on which date the posts came to be filled up by regularly selected candidates. 18. Further, when one goes through the objections filed by the respondents on 06.02.2013 in the instant petition, it is their specific stand that a post of Junior Assistant remained vacant from 16.03.1986 to 04.01.1994. It would be relevant to reproduce the relevant portion of objections hereunder: "5. It is submitted that the said post of Junior Assistant remained vacant from 16.03.1986 to 04.01.1994 when one Sh. Madan Parkash Dubey was selected by the SSRB and joined as Junior Assistant on 05.01.1994." 19. On going through the writ record including the record of previous petitions filed by the petitioner before this Court, it leads to one and only one conclusion that the respondents all along tried to mislead the Court on one or the other pretext by suppressing the factual position. Firstly, vide Order No. DSEJ/writ/890-95, dated 08.08.1998 they rejected the claim of petitioner with the plea that the posts of Junior Assistants had already been filled up by regularly selected candidates, therefore, there was no occasion for them to allow the petitioner to be in continuous service. Firstly, vide Order No. DSEJ/writ/890-95, dated 08.08.1998 they rejected the claim of petitioner with the plea that the posts of Junior Assistants had already been filled up by regularly selected candidates, therefore, there was no occasion for them to allow the petitioner to be in continuous service. Whereas, in the objections filed on 06.02.2013 they themselves admitted that a post of Junior Assistant remained vacant from 16.03.1986 to 04.01.1994. Secondly, when this Court on 06.08.2001 directed the respondents to consider the claim of petitioner in terms of Government order dated 11.09.1989 (supra), they again rejected the same vide Order No. 1186-90, dated 08.07.2002, this time now taking an altogether different ground that the petitioner had already become overage as on 01.01.1990. While rejecting the claim of petitioner, what was noted by Respondent No. 2 is that "after due application of mind" the case of petitioner is hereby rejected as she has become overage as on 01.01.1990, as the said fact stands admitted by the petitioner herself in the contempt petition where her age has been shown as 44 years. 20. What sort of application of mind respondent No. 2 had applied in dealing with the case of petitioner is not understandable. Instead of going through the relevant documents as regards the age proof of petitioner, it is very strange that Director School Education has relied on Contempt Petitions) No. 127/02 (in SWP No. 145/99), where the age of petitioner had been shown as 44 years. 21. Even Respondent No. 2 has failed to indicate as to how it treated the petitioner to be overage as on 01.01.1990. If I take the age of petitioner as 44 years in the year 2002 when the contempt petition came to be filed, she was certainly 32 years of age on 01.01.1990; meaning thereby when Order No. 1220-GAD of 1989, dated 11.09.1989 came to be issued, the petitioner was just 31 years of age. The said order indicates that "all ad-hoc appointees to non-gazetted posts recruited from time to time upto 29.12.1988 who are still in service be treated to have been appointed on regular basis" meaning thereby as on 29.12.1988 the petitioner was just 30 years of age. Then how Respondent No. 2 came to the conclusion that petitioner had become overage as on 01.01.1990. Then how Respondent No. 2 came to the conclusion that petitioner had become overage as on 01.01.1990. Otherwise too, the age of petitioner was to be considered with effect from 11.09.1989 when the said order came to be issued, and not from 01.01.1990 which respondent No. 2 has wrongly taken. The order impugned, therefore, is not only cryptic and perfunctory, but respondents also have not taken into consideration the crucial facts of the case and the directions passed by this Court in previous writ petitions. On flimsy grounds, the respondents have rejected the claim of petitioner. Virtually, there was no application of mind nor any proper consideration was given to the case of petitioner. I am indeed surprised by the casual approach of respondents with which they have dealt with the matter. 22. Thus, in view of above discussion, what emerges is that firstly the respondents rejected the claim of petitioner on 08.08.1998 on the ground that the posts of Junior Assistants had already been filled up by regularly selected candidates, however, the said fact they themselves belied on 06.02.2013, i.e., when after more than 14 years they took a specific stand in the instant petition that a post of Junior Assistant remained vacant from 16.03.1986 to 04.01.1994. Why the respondents did not treat the petitioner to have been appointed on regular basis against this vacant post of Junior Assistant in terms of Government order 11.09.1989 (supra) and why for all these years they misled the Court by giving a wrong impression, is a matter of grave concern. Not only this, the respondents thereafter, after about four years, changed their earlier stand and once again rejected the claim of petitioner on 08.07.2002 on altogether a different ground that the petitioner had already become overage as on 01.01.1990, when the fact of the matter was that the petitioner was only 31 years of age when Government order dated 11.09.1989 came to be issued. Further, once the judgment/order dated 25.04.1989 passed in SWP No. 795/86 had already attained finality and as per own admission of respondents, a post of Junior Assistant remained vacant with effect from 16.03.1986 to 04.01.1994, then how could they treat the petitioner to be in service only up to 18.11.1987. 23. Unfortunately, it seems the respondents were not honest in dealing with the case of petitioner; rather their main thrust was to reject her claim by all means. 23. Unfortunately, it seems the respondents were not honest in dealing with the case of petitioner; rather their main thrust was to reject her claim by all means. It is distressing to note that instead of mitigating the grievance of petitioner, the approach of respondents in dealing with her case was all along very callous and casual. Therefore, for the lackluster approach of respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. The respondents had altogether been neglecting the directions passed by this Court in SWP No. 795/86 which have since attained finality. I express my displeasure over the conduct of official respondents and the manner in which they have dealt with the case of petitioner. It is nothing but a willful and callous disregard towards the directions passed by this Court. I would like to quote hereunder what a Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed in judgment dated 06.08.2001 passed in SWP No. 145/99: "...The petitioner has not been re-engaged. Without commenting upon the conduct of the respondents whether this amounts to contempt of court or not, merits of controversy are being examined. The respondents were not taking any action in the matter." 24. Therefore, in view of the detailed discussion, I deem it proper to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Order No. 1186-90, dated 08.07.2002 issued by the Director School Education, Jammu (annexure "A" to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to treat the petitioner to be in continuous service in terms of judgment/order dated 25.04.1989 passed in SWP No. 795/86. Consequently, the petitioner would be treated to have been appointed on regular basis with effect from the date Government Order No. 1220-GAD of 1989, dated 11.09.1989 came to be issued along with all consequential benefits on notional basis. In case there is no post of Junior Assistant vacant as on date, the respondents are directed to create a supernumerary post for the petitioner. Let relevant order(s) in this regard be issued within a period of two months from today. 25. In case there is no post of Junior Assistant vacant as on date, the respondents are directed to create a supernumerary post for the petitioner. Let relevant order(s) in this regard be issued within a period of two months from today. 25. Before parting, I would like to observe here that the petitioner has been hankering for justice for the last about 30 years, but the respondents despite clear-cut directions from the Court in previous writ petitions did not appoint the petitioner on regular basis in terms of Government order dated 11.09.1989 (supra); rather they rejected her claim on one or the other pretext, least bothering about the fact that this is the fourth round of litigation and in the melee about three decades have passed. In the given circumstances, I really do not appreciate the manner in which the official respondents took the judicial process for a ride and rejected the case of petitioner on flimsy grounds. In the peculiar facts and circumstance of this case, the State is directed to bear and pay the costs to petitioner within a period of two months from today after proper verification and identification, which is quantified at rupees fifty thousand. It is made clear that in case the official respondents fail to deposit the costs in the Registry within the aforesaid period, Registrar (Judicial) is directed to frame a separate robkar against them, and after issuing notice to them, list the same before the Court. Disposed of along with connected miscellaneous petitions.