Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 411 (JK)

Sabiya Rashid v. University of Kashmir

2022-08-26

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : With a view to providing for regularization of various persons working in the University of Kashmir on casual, contractual or consolidated basis, a roadmap was prepared by the Financial Advisor (Universities) vide his No.FA-KU/JU/202-204.com/13 dated 20.08.2013. The roadmap prepared by the Financial Advisor (Universities) was approved by the University Council and process for regularization of persons engaged on casual/contractual basis was set in motion on the basis of guidelines promulgated by the University of Kashmir vide Notification No. F(Regular-Casual/Const-Gen.Adm) KU/14 dated 03.09.2014. The guidelines laid down in the said Notification are as under:- “1. The person working on casual or contractual or consolidated basis shall be regularized on fulfillment of the following conditions:- (i) That he/she has been engaged in the Main Campus/Satellite Campuses of the University of Kashmir by the General Administration on the approval of the Competent Authority; (ii) That he/she is continuously working on casual/consolidated/contractual basis without any break (other than the usual breaks/leave sanctioned by the authority i.e. Head of the Department/Directors/Coordinators/Librarian/Controller of Examinations); (iii) That he/she possesses the requisite qualification and eligibility criteria required for the post on the date of his/her initial engagement on casual or ad hoc or contractual or consolidated basis; (iv) That no disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending against him/her on the appointed day i.e. date on which he/she is considered for regularization; (v) That he/she has completed seven years or more service (uninterrupted) as such on the appointed day i.e. the date of regularization. 2. The Committee consisting of all the following shall examine/recommend the cases of casual/contractual workers presently engaged in the University for regularization under rules:- (i) Vice-Chancellor; (ii) Registrar; (iii) Director General Accounts and Treasuries (from Finance Deptt.) (iv) Director Budget (from Finance Deptt.) (v) An officer of the Administration Deptt. 3. Procedure for regularization:- (a) The Committee shall consider the cases of all the casual/contractual engagees who have completed seven years of uninterrupted service after the first engagement and who have been paid regularly by the University from available resources. Upon regularization, such of the engagees as cannot be regularized suitably against available posts, could be designated as “Helpers” and be given the pay scales applicable to the lowest class-IV of employees in the University as the case may be. For such a process of regularization, supernumerary and temporary posts of “Helpers” shall be created outside the normal/existing hierarchy of the University. For such a process of regularization, supernumerary and temporary posts of “Helpers” shall be created outside the normal/existing hierarchy of the University. (b) Helpers could subsequently move to clear posts/vacancies in the formal organization hierarchy as and when these become available and the supernumerary/temporary posts of Helpers vacated by the incumbents shall automatically get abolished. 4. The following shall not be considered for regularization:- (a) Persons engaged on casual/contractual/consolidated basis in whose favour engagement order has not been issued by the General Administration of the University i.e without the approval of the Competent Authority. (b) Persons engaged in the Research Projects/Schemes sponsored by various Govt./Private Agencies. 5. The regularization of the eligible casual or contractual or consolidated engagees shall have effect only from the date of such regularization irrespective of the fact that such engagees have completed more than seven years of service on the date of regularization. 6. The persons engaged on casual or contractual or consolidated basis who have not completed seven years shall continue as such till completion of seven years and shall thereafter be considered for regularization. 7. There will be complete ban on engagement of casual/contractual workers. 2. The Empowered Committee headed by Vice-Chancellor scrutinized the cases of all the casual/contractual engagees, who had completed seven years of uninterrupted service after their first engagement and who had been paid regularly by the University from available resources, and recommended regularization of 150 casual/contractual engagees in the first instance. The Finance Committee in its meeting held on 29.06.2015 accepted the recommendations of the Empowered Committee and the matter was placed before the University Council at its meeting held on 23.10.2015. The University Council vide its resolution No. 4:47.2 and 4:47.3 dated 23.10.2015 resolved that creation of 150 supernumerary positions of helpers in the pay band of Rs.4440-7440/- with Grade Pay of Rs.1300 be approved and the provision for funds be suitably reflected in the revised budget estimates. Pursuant to the decision of the University Council taken at its meeting held on 23.10.2015, the casual/contractual engagees, who had completed seven years of uninterrupted service and were eligible for regularization as per the Notification dated 03.09.2014 (supra), issued by the University, were regularized as Helpers against the aforesaid supernumerary posts created on the approval of the University Council. Pursuant to the decision of the University Council taken at its meeting held on 23.10.2015, the casual/contractual engagees, who had completed seven years of uninterrupted service and were eligible for regularization as per the Notification dated 03.09.2014 (supra), issued by the University, were regularized as Helpers against the aforesaid supernumerary posts created on the approval of the University Council. Similarly, 366 more casual/contractual engagees were cleared by the Empowered Committee and the Finance Committee at its meetings held on 15.12.2017 and 06.03.2017 respectively. The matter was placed before the University Council at its meeting held on 22.04.2017 and the University Council vide its Resolution No. 77:11 accepted the recommendations of the Empowered/Finance Committees and created equal number of supernumerary positions, to be designated as Helpers to facilitate the regularization of the casual/contractual engagees, who had attained eligibility for regularization as per the roadmap prepared by the Financial Advisor (Universities) and approved by the University Council. In the year 2018 as well, the Empowered Committee and the Finance Committee in their meetings held on 19.03.2018 and 20.03.2018 respectively cleared 247 more casual/contractual engagees for regularization. The matter was placed before the University Council at its meeting held on 10.04.2018 and the University Council vide its Resolution No. 17 accepted the recommendations of the Empowered/Finance Committees and created 247 more supernumerary posts of Helpers to facilitate regularization of those casual/contractual engagees who had attained the eligibility for regularization in the year 2018. 3. From a perusal of record of the University, it transpires that 84 casual/contractual engagees completed mandatory period of seven years of uninterrupted service on 31.10.2018. Their cases too were cleared by the Empowered/Finance Committees at its meeting held on 22.09.2018, 29.09.2018 and 9.10.2018 respectively. Both the Committees recommended creation of 84 more supernumerary positions of Helpers to facilitate the eligible casual/contractual engagees. Following the similar process as had been followed on three earlier occasions, the University Authorities placed the matter before the University Council in its meeting held on 05.06.2020. The University Council, instead of approving the creation of 84 more supernumerary positions of Helpers to accommodate equal number of eligible casual/contractual engagees which include the petitioners herein, resolved as under:- “The proposal be agreed in principle. Further resolved that the case history of all such cases/persons be submitted with full details to the Hon”ble Chancellor on file through Financial Adviser Universities i.e FC-Finance, J&K Govt” 4. Further resolved that the case history of all such cases/persons be submitted with full details to the Hon”ble Chancellor on file through Financial Adviser Universities i.e FC-Finance, J&K Govt” 4. The University Authorities complied with the decision of the University Council and detailed case history and documents were forwarded to the Financial Adviser (Universities) vide letter No. N(Casual-Regularization) KU/HVC/20 dated 24.08.2020. The matter is since pending either before the Financial Adviser or with the Hon”ble Chancellor of the University. However, no decision on the fate of 84 casual/contractual engagees which include the petitioners herein, has been taken for the last more than two years. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the discriminatory treatment meted out to them, the petitioners have filed the instant petition. The petitioners’ short grievance is that, by completing 7 years of uninterrupted service on 31.10.2018 and being fully eligible in terms of University’s Notification dated 03.09.2014 (supra), they have acquired an indefeasible right of regularization as per the guidelines contained in the University Notification dated 03.09.2014 (supra). They also claim parity with earlier three batches of casual/contractual engagees who were similarly placed and were regularized in terms of University Notification dated 03.09.2014 (supra) in the year 2015, 2017 and 2018 respectively. 6. The claim of the petitioners is predicated primarily on the following three grounds:- (i) That University Notification dated 03.09.214 laying down guidelines for regularization of casual/contractual engagees has been issued by the University of Kashmir in terms of roadmap communicated by the Financial Advisor (Universities) and duly approved by the University Council. The petitioners, being eligible in terms of that notification, cannot be denied the benefit of regularization, that too, without indicating any reasons; (ii) That, by acquiring eligibility and completing the mandatory period of 07 years’ uninterrupted service as on 31.10.2018, the petitioners came to be similarly placed/situated with the earlier three batches cleared by the University Council at its meetings held on 23.10.2015, 22.04.2017 and 10.04.2018. The University Council, by not adopting the uniform pattern and deviating for undisclosed reasons, have not only acted arbitrarily, but has also subjected the petitioners to hostile discrimination; and, (iii) That under the Kashmir and Jammu Universities Act, 1969 [“the Act of 1969”] and the Statues and Regulations framed thereunder by the respective Universities, University Council is an Apex Body and its decisions are not amenable to modification, variation or supersession by any other authority including the Chancellor and the Financial Advisor. The University Council, having accepted the proposal, in principle, should not have made it subject to scrutiny by the Chancellor with the assistance of Financial Advisor (Universities). 7. The respondent-University of Kashmir has filed the objections. It is not denied by the University that the roadmap for regularization of casual/contractual engagees, formulated and communicated by the Financial Advisor (Universities), has the approval of the University Council, and in tune with it the University has issued the detailed guidelines vide its notification dated 03.09.2014 (supra). The respondent-university also does not dispute that three batches of casual/contractual engagees comprising 150, 366 and 247 members respectively have been regularized by the University after creating equal number of posts pursuant to the decisions taken by the University Council in its meetings held on 23.10.2015, 22.04.2017 and 10.04.2018. There is no explanation coming forth from the respondent-University as to why the procedure, which they adopted in the years 2015, 2017 and 2018, was not adopted in the instant case. There is no whisper as to why the University Council, which agreed to the proposal cleared by the Empowered Committee on 22.09.2018/29.09.2018 and the Finance Committee on 09.10.2018, which was accepted in principle, was not given effect to. Instead of approving creation of 84 supernumerary positions of helpers as recommended by the Empowered/Finance Committees, the matter was decided to be submitted to the Hon”ble Chancellor on file through Financial Advisor (Universities). There is also no explanation as to why the Hon”ble Chancellor has not been able to take any decision on the matter for the last two years. 8. There is also no explanation as to why the Hon”ble Chancellor has not been able to take any decision on the matter for the last two years. 8. From a perusal of the record produced by the University, it transpires that the proposal cleared by the University Council in its meeting held on 05.06.2020, in principle, has not been taken to its logical conclusion due to uncalled for and unwarranted opinions of the Financial Advisor (Universities) and the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs. As a matter of fact, one would not find any opinion by either of the authorities other than emphasizing the necessity to contest the petition of the petitioners vigorously in the Court of law. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, it is necessary to first take note of salient provisions of the Act of 1969, under which, the University of Kashmir has been established. It would also call for having a look on the relevant Statues and Regulations of the University of Kashmir to understand in its correct perspective the hierarchy of the authorities of the University. Under the Act of 1969, two Universities known by the name of University of Kashmir and University of Jammu have been constituted/established for Kashmir and Jammu divisions respectively. The Universities established under the Act of 1969, as is evident from reading of the Act of 1969, are conferred not only the institutional, but also the Financial autonomy. 10. It is true that these twin Universities may not have adequate resources of their own to meet their expenditure and, therefore, depend on the financial aid extended by the Government. With a view to ensuring that the financial aid/Government funds provided to run these Universities are spent in furtherance of the objects of the Universities, the Secretary to the Government, Department of Finance is ex-officio the Financial Advisor of the University. The Head of the State i.e. the Governor or the Lieutenant Governor, as the case may be, heads all the important committees of the University, particularly, its apex body i.e. the University Council. Besides the aforesaid two authorities, the other Government officials, like the Director (Finance), the Secretary to the Government, Department of Education (Higher and Technical) are also included as members in the Finance Committee to assist the Syndicate to take decisions in relation to financial matters. Besides the aforesaid two authorities, the other Government officials, like the Director (Finance), the Secretary to the Government, Department of Education (Higher and Technical) are also included as members in the Finance Committee to assist the Syndicate to take decisions in relation to financial matters. Section 9 of the Act of 1969 enumerates the officers of the University and the same reads as under:- “9. The following shall be the officers of each University:- 1. The Chancellor; 2. The Pro-Chancellor; 3. The Pro Vice-Chancellor, if any; 4. The financial Advisor; 5. The Registrar; 6. The Controller of Examinations; 7. The Joint Registrar, if any; and 8. Such other officers as the Statutes may declared to be the officers of a University”. 11. In terms of Section 10 of the Act of 1969, the Governor or the Lieutenant Governor, as the case may be, is the Chancellor of both the Universities. The Chancellor is head of both the Universities and, when present, presides at the meetings of the University Council and at the Convocations of both the Universities. The next to the Chancellor is the pro-Chancellor. The Chief Minister of the State/UT is ex-officio Pro-Chancellor of both the Universities. This is so provided in Section 11 of the Act of 1969. The Vice-Chancellor, the 3rd officer of the University in the hierarchy is a whole time paid or a part-time honorary officer of the University appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the Pro-Chancellor from amongst the persons whose names are submitted to him by the Committee. This is so provided in Section 12 of the Act of 1969. The Vice-Chancellor, as is evident from Section 13 of the said Act, is the Principal Executive and Academic Officer of the University and in the absence of the Chancellor and the Pro-Chancellor, presides at the meetings of the University Council and at any convocation of the University. He is also an ex-officio member and Chairman of the Academic Council and such other authorities and bodies as are provided under the provisions of the Act of 1969. Section 16 of the said Act, which deals with the appointment of Financial Advisor, is of vital importance for the case on hand and, therefore, set out below:- “16. 1. He is also an ex-officio member and Chairman of the Academic Council and such other authorities and bodies as are provided under the provisions of the Act of 1969. Section 16 of the said Act, which deals with the appointment of Financial Advisor, is of vital importance for the case on hand and, therefore, set out below:- “16. 1. The Secretary to Government, Finance Department, or any other officer nominated by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir shall be the ex-officio Financial Adviser to both the Universities. 2. The Financial Adviser shall exercise general supervision over the funds of each University and shall advise it as regards its financial policy. 3. The Financial Adviser shall be an ex-officio member of the University Council and the Syndicate of both the Universities. 4. The Financial Adviser shall:- (a) present annual estimates and the statements of accounts to the Syndicate and the University Council, and (b) exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by the Statutes and Regulations”. 12. From a reading of Section 16 reproduced above, it is evident that the Financial Advisor is none other than the Secretary to the Government, Finance Department or could be any other officer nominated by the Government. He exercises general supervision over the funds of each University and advises it as regards its financial policy. He is also an ex-officio member of the University Council and the Syndicate of both the Universities. He is a person, who is responsible to present annual estimates and the statements of accounts to the Syndicate and the University Council and to exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by the Statues and the Regulations. 13. Section 20 of the Act of 1969 enumerates the Authorities which each University shall have to run its administration. Section 20 is also reproduced hereunder:- “20. The following shall be the authorities of each University:- 1. The University Council; 2. The Syndicate; 3. The Academic Council; 4. The Faculties; 5. The Board of Studies; 6. The Boards of Research Studies; 7. The Board of Inspection; and, 8. Such other authorities as may be declared by the statues to be the authorities of the University” 14. The following shall be the authorities of each University:- 1. The University Council; 2. The Syndicate; 3. The Academic Council; 4. The Faculties; 5. The Board of Studies; 6. The Boards of Research Studies; 7. The Board of Inspection; and, 8. Such other authorities as may be declared by the statues to be the authorities of the University” 14. The University Council constituted under Section 21 of the Act of 1969 consists of various members which include the Chancellor, the Pro-Chancellor, the Education Minister, the Vice-Chancellor of the University concerned, the Financial Advisor, the Educational Advisor, etc. 15. As is ordained in Section 22 of the Act of 1969, the University Council of a University is the Supreme Authority of the University and shall have powers enumerated in Section 22 from clauses (a) to (j). 16. The Syndicate of the University is the Chief Executive Authority except in respect of the matters falling within the purview of the University Council. The Syndicate is headed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University concerned and is assisted by various members including the Financial Advisor. The Syndicate of the University is enjoined the duty to frame the budget estimates of the University and submit the same to the University Council at a time to be prescribed by the Statues. It has the power to hold, control and administer the funds, property and other assets of the University, provided that no expenditure shall be incurred which has not been included in the approved estimates except with the sanction of the University Council. To assist the Syndicate, there is a Standing Finance Committee constituted for regulating and controlling the finances of the University. Statute 2.22 provides for the constitution of the Standing Finance Committee and the same, for facility of reference, is also set out below:- “2.22. The Syndicate shall have its Standing Finance Committee for regulating and controlling its finances. It shall consist of the following:- 1. Vice-Chancellor; 2. Pro Vice-Chancellor; if any; 3. Financial Adviser; 4. Secretary to Government Education Department (Higher and Technical); 5. Two members of the Syndicate nominated by the Syndicate; 6. Registrar-Member Secretary The nominated members of the Committee shall hold office for a period of three calendar years from the respective dates of their nomination as such” 17. Vice-Chancellor; 2. Pro Vice-Chancellor; if any; 3. Financial Adviser; 4. Secretary to Government Education Department (Higher and Technical); 5. Two members of the Syndicate nominated by the Syndicate; 6. Registrar-Member Secretary The nominated members of the Committee shall hold office for a period of three calendar years from the respective dates of their nomination as such” 17. The Finance Committee, as is evident from its constitution, is headed by the Vice-Chancellor and assisted, inter alia, by the Financial Adviser and the Secretary to the Government, Education Department (Higher and Technical). 18. From a reading of the entire Act of 1969 and the Statutes and Regulations framed thereunder, one would find that the Chancellor of the University is empowered to preside over the meetings of supreme body of the University i.e. the University Council as also at the convocations of the Universities. Independently of his position, being the presiding member of the University Council and his right to preside at the convocations of both the Universities, this Court could not trace out any special powers and privileges of the Chancellor, more particularly, conferring upon him the power to sit over the decisions taken by the University Council. The Syndicate of the University is responsible to take care of fiscal needs of the University to frame the budget estimates of the University and to submit the same to the University Council at a time to be prescribed by the Statutes. The Syndicate has the power and authority to hold, control and administer the funds, property and other assets of the University and in the exercise of discharge of its functions particularly in relation to financial matters, the Syndicate is assisted by the Standing Finance Committee which is also headed by the Vice-Chancellor and assisted, inter alia, by the Financial Adviser and the Secretary to the Government, Department of Education (Higher and Technical). 19. From the entire scheme of things emerging from reading of the Act of 1969 and the Statutes and Regulations framed thereunder, it is evident that no decision involving financial implications could be taken without approval of the authorities like the Syndicate and the University Council which have the statutory presence of Financial Advisor and the Financial Advisor is none other than the Secretary to the Government, Finance Department. The Secretary to Government, Department of Education (Higher and Technical) is also an officer of the Government and associated in the decision making. 20. Viewed thus, this Court finds that the University of Kashmir and University of Jammu which are the creatures of the Act of 1969 are fully autonomous in character, both in institutional as well as the financial matters. The University Council is the supreme body of the University concerned and its decisions cannot be varied, modified or overturned by any authority, howsoever high it may be in its own affairs. 21. In the instant case, indisputably, the decision has been taken by the University Council in its meeting held on 05.06.2020 and as per the decision, the proposal of the University to create 84 supernumerary positions of helpers to regularize the services of equal number of casual/contractual engagees which include the petitioners herein also, has been cleared by the Empowered/Finance Committees respectively. After having undergone the aforesaid process, it reached the University Council which in its meeting held on 05.06.2020 resolved that the proposal be agreed in principle. In that view of the matter, it was only a useless formality or an uncalled for procedure suggested by the University Council, that is, to submit the case history of all the eligible casual/contractual engagees with full details to the Chancellor on file through Financial Adviser (Universities) i.e. FC-Finance JK Government. 22. It is surprising to note that, on similar set of circumstances, when the persons similarly situated with the petitioners attained the eligibility to regularization of their services as helpers, the University Council, on three occasions i.e. on 23.10.2015, 22.04.2017 and 10.04.2018 itself cleared all the proposals and granted the approval for creation of supernumerary positions to be designated as Helpers to regularize the services of eligible casual/contractual engagees. When, in the year 2018 itself, 84 more causal/contractual engagees completed their mandatory period of seven years of uninterrupted service and became eligible for regularization on 31.10.2018, the University authorities put the matter through the similar process. It was cleared by the Empowered Committee in its meetings held on 22.09.2018 and 29.09.2018. On the recommendations of the Empowered Committee, the Standing Finance Committee of the Syndicate also ratified the recommendations of the Empowered Committee at its meeting held on 09.10.2018. It was cleared by the Empowered Committee in its meetings held on 22.09.2018 and 29.09.2018. On the recommendations of the Empowered Committee, the Standing Finance Committee of the Syndicate also ratified the recommendations of the Empowered Committee at its meeting held on 09.10.2018. In exactly similar fashion, the file reached the University Council and the matter taken up for consideration at the meeting held on 05.06.2020. Surprisingly, the University Council did not follow the course it had adopted on earlier three occasions in the entirely identical cases. The University Council though agreed with the proposal in principle, but, instead of approving creation of 84 more supernumerary positions to be designated as Helpers and directing regularization of the eligible casual/contractual engagees including the petitioners, unnecessarily referred the matter to the Chancellor through Financial Adviser (Universities). 23. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the University Authorities acted in tune with the Resolution of the University Council and vide communication dated 24.08.2020 submitted and forwarded to the Financial Advisor the detailed case history and the documents of 84 casual/contractual engagees for further necessary action. When nothing was done by the Financial Adviser or for that matter by the Chancellor, the petitioners filed the instant petition. 24. From a perusal of the record produced by the Registrar, University of Kashmir, it further transpires that the respondents did not take the petitioners going to the Court kindly and, thus, started the process of tossing the file from the Financial Advisor to the Secretary, Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and vice-versa. I could appreciate, had there been any opinion either by the Financial Adviser or by the Secretary, Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs that the petitioners were not similarly situated with hundred other contractual engagees who were regularized on the approval of the University Council granted on 23.10.2015, 22.04.2017 and 10.04.2018 respectively. Both the Financial Adviser and the Secretary to the Government, Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs advised the University to contest the writ petition of the petitioners, casual/contractual engagees, tooth and nail by applying all might at its disposal. As observed above, the Financial Adviser to the University was himself a party to the decisions those were taken in the University Council on 23.10.2015, 22.04.2017 & 10.04.2018 wherein the approval was granted for creation of 150, 366 and 247 supernumerary posts of Helpers respectively. As observed above, the Financial Adviser to the University was himself a party to the decisions those were taken in the University Council on 23.10.2015, 22.04.2017 & 10.04.2018 wherein the approval was granted for creation of 150, 366 and 247 supernumerary posts of Helpers respectively. I could not find anything either in the record produced by the University or in the reply affidavit filed by the Registrar, University of Kashmir which could justify the deviation made by the University Council in its meeting held on 05.06.2020 in relation to 84 cases of casual/contractual engagees who, under similar set of circumstances, had completed the mandatory period of seven years of uninterrupted service as on 31.10.2018 and had become entitled to regularization as per the roadmap of the Financial Adviser approved by the supreme authority of the University i.e. the University Council. 25. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court finds the petitioners entitled to regularization of their services w.e.f. 01.11.2018 for the following reasons:- (i) Indisputably, the petitioners have completed the mandatory period of seven years of uninterrupted service as casual/contractual engagees and have become entitled to regularization w.e.f. 01.11.2018 in terms of the roadmap for regularization of casual/contractual engagees, formulated and communicated by the Financial Adviser which roadmap stands approved by the University Council; (ii) On the approval granted by the University Council, on earlier three occasions i.e. 23.10.2015, 22.04.2017 and 10.04.2018, the University Council not only created hundreds of supernumerary positions and designated them as Helpers for regularizing the services of those who had completed seven years of uninterrupted service and were otherwise eligible under the University Notification dated 03.09.2014 (supra). The University Council could not have deviated from its earlier position while dealing with the cases of 84 casual/contractual engagees who also completed their mandatory period of seven years of uninterrupted service and became eligible for regularization on 31.10.2018, more so, when the cases of these 84 casual/contractual engagees which include the petitioners were entirely similar and identical to the cases of those who were regularized in the year 2015, 2017 and 2018 respectively. The petitioners have, thus, been subjected to hostile discrimination. The action of respondents is, thus, absolutely discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have, thus, been subjected to hostile discrimination. The action of respondents is, thus, absolutely discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (iii) That the decision of the University Council to refer the matter to the Chancellor through Financial Adviser after having accepted the proposal in principle, is totally arbitrary and de hors Act of 1969 and the Statues and Regulations framed thereunder. There was no point in referring the matter to the Chancellor through Financial Adviser, when both the authorities were present in the University Council. To remind, it may be pointed out that the Chancellor is the head of the University Council and is assisted, inter-alia, by the Financial Adviser, who is one of the members of the University Council. The University Council being the supreme body of the University cannot abdicate its powers to the authority or authorities which are not superior to it; and, (iv) From reading of Act of 1969 and the statues and Regulations framed thereunder, this Court has come to the conclusion that the Universities created under the Act of 1969 enjoy the institutional as well as the financial autonomy and the interest of the Government in utilization of funds provided to the Universities is well taken care of by the inbuilt mechanism. The Financial Adviser is none other than the Secretary to the Government, Department of Finance and apart from him, the Secretary to the Government, Department of Education (Higher and Technical) is also a member of all important committees. That being the position, I find no reason or justification to raise the position of the Financial Adviser and for that matter, the Chancellor of the University to the level above the University Council. There could be no two supreme bodies in any institution. The Chancellor being the head of the University and entitled to preside over the meetings of the University Council, has been vested with enough control of running the affairs of the University. There could be no two supreme bodies in any institution. The Chancellor being the head of the University and entitled to preside over the meetings of the University Council, has been vested with enough control of running the affairs of the University. That apart, this Court does not find any reason or justification coming forth, either from the record of the University or the reply affidavit filed by the Registrar, University of Kashmir which could throw light as to why, for the last two years, the Chancellor and the Financial Adviser, to whom the matter was referred by the University Council in its meeting held on 05.06.2020, could not take a decision in the matter, though this Court finds that such course of action adopted by the University Council was totally illegal, arbitrary and de hors Act of 1969 and the Statues and the Regulations framed thereunder. 26. For the foregoing reasons and the discussion made above, I find merit in this petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed by providing as under:- (i) In terms of decision of the University Council taken in its meeting held on 05.06.2020, 84 supernumerary positions to be designated as Helpers in the pay band of Rs.4440-7440 shall be deemed to have been created w.e.f. 01.11.2018; (ii) The respondents shall go ahead with the process of regularization of 84 casual/contractual engagees which include the petitioners against such posts/positions of Helpers and issue appropriate orders of regularization in favour of those who are found to have completed mandatory period of seven years of uninterrupted service and are otherwise found eligible in terms of University Notification dated 03.09.2014 (supra); (iii) The petitioners shall be entitled to their regularization with retrospective effect from the date they have attained the eligibility for such regularization i.e. 01.11.2018 and shall also be entitled to arrears of their salary; and, (iv) The respondents shall do well to complete the entire exercise, culminating into issuance of regularization orders in favour of eligible casual/contractual engagees which may include the petitioners within a period of two months from the date a copy of this judgment is served upon them. Disposed of accordingly. CCP(S) No. 98/2021 This is a petition for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for wilful disobedience and non-compliance of interim order dated 18.11.2020 passed in CM No.5342/2020 in WP(C) No. 1797/2020. Disposed of accordingly. CCP(S) No. 98/2021 This is a petition for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for wilful disobedience and non-compliance of interim order dated 18.11.2020 passed in CM No.5342/2020 in WP(C) No. 1797/2020. Since the main petition has been finally disposed of by this Court vide order of even date, the interim order of which the violation is alleged has merged with the final order rendering this contempt petition infructuous. Dismissed as infructuous. ----- HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Rahul Bharti, J. Majid Nabi Khan – Appellant Versus Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Bijbehara and Others – Respondent CM(M) 130/2022 Decided on : 16-8-2022 Cases Referred: 1. Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajindra Shanker, 2010 AIR SCW 6387. (Para 19) 2. Wander Limited Vs. Antox India Private Limited (1990 (Supp.1) SCC 727. (Para 23) Advocate Appeared : For the Appellant(s) : Mr. R.A. Jan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S. Farooq and Mr. Taha Khalil, Advocates For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Satinder Singh, AAG for 1 For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Ashraf Wani, Advocate for 2-10 JUDGMENT : In this petition, preferred under article 227 of the Constitution of India, an issue broaches as to the limitation of and latitude for an appellate court in an appeal under Order 43 rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, (CPC in short), against an order of grant/refusal of a temporary injunction relief by a civil court. To put it more bluntly, issue is whether an appellate court can, in purported exercise of its jurisdiction under Order 43 rule 1(r) CPC, sidestep main cause of a civil suit and the appealable order passed therein, and self-generate a new situation to deal with. 2. As the facts of the present case present such a scenario, so this Court has taken a call to examine the case in exercise of its jurisdictional authority and responsibility under article 227 of the Constitution of India while being fully aware of the eternal enunciation coded in the article 227 of the Constitution of India which is meant to keep the subordinate courts/tribunal within the bounds of their jurisdiction and authority, and consequently to nip the reported extra-judicial transgression on the part of a court/tribunal before it repeats into a tendency. 3. With the aforeset preface, the facts attending the case are set out for undertaking supervisory scrutiny. 4. 3. With the aforeset preface, the facts attending the case are set out for undertaking supervisory scrutiny. 4. The petitioner, as being the plaintiff, files a civil suit on 21st April 2022 before the Court of Sub Judge, Anantnag for seeking a decree of declaration and injunction. The petitioner’s right to sue related to his purported status as being the President of the Municipal Committee, Bijbehara. The sole defendant named in the suit is Executive Officer, Municipal Executive Committee, Bijbehara, Anantnag, Kashmir, the respondent no. 1 herein. 5. The purported cause of action for the petitioner to file the suit is issuance of a notice no. MC/Bij/G/2022/1033-39 dated 20th April 2022 by the defendant Executive Officer, Municipal Executive Committee Bijbehara, for the purpose of convening a special meeting under rule 27 of the Procedure & Business Conduct Rules/Byelaws 2021 with respect to a purported resolution for motion of No-confidence alleged to be signed by nine out of sixteen elected Municipality Committee members of the Municipal Committee, Bijbehara. The Municipal Committee, Bijbehara is in last year of its five-year tenure. The petitioner alleged procedural deficiencies and manipulation attending both the resolution and no-confidence moved against him and the communication issued by the sole defendant the Executive Officer, Municipal Executive Committee, Bijbehara. 6. The trial court of Sub Judge, Anantnag, vide its order dated 21st April 2022 came to stay, ad interim, the operation of the said Communication no. MC/Bij/G/2022/1033-39 dated 20th April, 2022 of the defendant Executive Officer, Municipal Executive Committee, Bijbehara read with the resolution bearing No-confidence. It is pertinent to mention here that the elected members of the Municipal Committee Bijbehara who had moved the purported resolution for No-confidence against the petitioner were not named as the defendants in the suit. 7. MC/Bij/G/2022/1033-39 dated 20th April, 2022 of the defendant Executive Officer, Municipal Executive Committee, Bijbehara read with the resolution bearing No-confidence. It is pertinent to mention here that the elected members of the Municipal Committee Bijbehara who had moved the purported resolution for No-confidence against the petitioner were not named as the defendants in the suit. 7. Said ad interim order of stay dated 21ist April, 2022 of the Court of Sub Judge, Anantnag came to be questioned by the respondents 2 to 10, who then were not figuring as defendants in the suit, before this Court in a petition CM(M) 66/2022 under article 227 of the Constitution of India which came to be disposed of vide an order dated 27th April, 2022 with a direction in terms whereof the respondents 2 to 10, as being the petitioners in said CM(M) 66/2022, were ordered impleaded as defendants 2 to 10 in the suit of the petitioner, along with original sole defendant Executive Officer, Municipal Executive Committee Bijbehara, for enabling the respondents 2 to 10 contest the suit and temporary injunction application of the petitioner. 8. Upon becoming as the defendants 2 to 10, the respondents 2 to 10 came to pose challenge through their joint written statement and objections filed in answer to the suit and the temporary injunction application of the petitioner. The respondents 2 to 10 in their written statement maintained not only preliminary objections to the maintainability of the suit by reference to section 44 of the Municipal Act, 2000 and others as well but also on the merits of the case as well. The respondents 2 to 10 in their written statement stated that it was only upon the failure of the petitioner to act in convening the meeting for fresh election that the original defendant Executive Officer, Municipal Executive Committee Bijbehara, had stepped in, by compulsion of statutory provisions, with his communication challenged in the suit by the petitioner. Thus, the respondents 2 to 10 defended the legality and validity of the exercise attending their resolution for no confidence motion against the petitioner. 9. The learned Sub Judge, Anantnag came to pass final order dated 26th May 2022 thereby dismissing the temporary injunction application of the petitioner, and also vacating the interim direction of stay of the communication no. Thus, the respondents 2 to 10 defended the legality and validity of the exercise attending their resolution for no confidence motion against the petitioner. 9. The learned Sub Judge, Anantnag came to pass final order dated 26th May 2022 thereby dismissing the temporary injunction application of the petitioner, and also vacating the interim direction of stay of the communication no. MC/Bij/G/2022/1033-39 dated 20th April, 2022 of the defendant no.1 the Executive Officer, Municipal Executive Committee Bijbehara with a further direction to the defendant no. 1 the Executive Officer Municipal Executive Committee, Bijbehara, to exercise the process of No-confidence motion strictly in terms of the provisions of the Municipal Act, 2000 and the Rules thereunder. 10. This Order dated 26th May, 2022 of the learned Sub Judge, Anantnag came to be challenged in an appeal filed on 27th May 2022 by the petitioner before the lower appellate court of the Additional District Judge, Anantnag. It is at this stage of litigation that the actual course of legal proceedings envisaged to be carried out by the appellate court acting under the spell of Order 43 rule 1(r) CPC came to take, or rather taken, to a different course by the court of the Additional District Judge, Anantnag as if the trial court’s exercise in hearing and adjudicating the temporary injunction application of the petitioner and disposing it of by labor of an order dated 26th May, 2022 was of no interest and importance to the court of the Additional District Judge, Anantnag as it was willing to charter a new course of its own fancy to be nursed by the purported choice/consent of the respondents 2 to 10 and the petitioner. 11. Before proceeding to dwell upon the course of action so resorted to by the Court of Additional District Judge, Anantnag, it is in the fitness of the situation to mention that being seized of an appeal under Order 43 rule 1(r) CPC it was mandated upon the appellate court of Additional District Judge, Anantnag to hear the same and dispose it on its merits in conformity with the principle of judicial hierarchy and domain of civil courts. The intended outcome of the appeal so filed by the petitioner before the court of Additional District Judge, Anantnag would have been either the order impugned of the Court of Sub Judge, Anantnag getting set aside or confirmed/varied/altered by an appellate order of the Court of Additional District Judge, Anantnag following the well settled legal principle that an appeal against an order of discretion is an appeal on principle affording very limited scope of examination of order passed under order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC in granting or refusing an interlocutory injunction relief. 12. While hearing the appeal filed by the petitioner, in terms of the submissions made from the petitioner’s as well as the respondents 2 to 10’s end about which reference is gatherable from a perusal of an order dated 11th June, 2022 and which exercise if taken to its logical end would have resulted in disposal of the appeal as warranted in law, but instead the Court of Additional District Judge, Anantnag allowed itself a distraction and take a detour. The Additional District Judge, Anantnag relieves, in fact abandons, the exercise of examining the submissions so made by the parties on the merits of the case in appeal and examining the trial court order, and resorts to become self-imposed supervisory authority of the Municipal Committee, Bijbehara by not only in calling for the official record from the office of the Municipal Committee, Bijbehara but also to make both the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 10 to undertake a fresh process & exercise for resolution/motion of no-confidence. This gets done under the pretext of an application dated 6th June 2022 preferred by the respondents 2 to 10 in the said appeal. 13. In terms of their said application dated 06/06/2022, the respondents 2 to 10 solicited the Additional District Judge, Anantnag to appoint a judicial officer for monitoring the special meeting to be convened for voting on the no confidence motion against the petitioner for ensuring that the legal provisions governing the matter in question are followed and adhered to. 14. 13. In terms of their said application dated 06/06/2022, the respondents 2 to 10 solicited the Additional District Judge, Anantnag to appoint a judicial officer for monitoring the special meeting to be convened for voting on the no confidence motion against the petitioner for ensuring that the legal provisions governing the matter in question are followed and adhered to. 14. To this application of the respondents 2 to 10, by reference to a purported no objection on the part of the counsel representing the petitioner in appeal, the Additional District Judge, Anantnag ventured in the extra-judicial mode, which is reflected from order dated 11th June, 2022 in which after having heard the full dressed submissions of the parties on the merits of the case so as to be in an enabling position to deliver the judgment with respect to the legality and sustainability of the order impugned, the Additional District Judge, Anantnag instead opts to nominate a Sub Judge, serving as Secretary, District Legal Services Authority (DLAS), Anantnag on fees of Rs. 20,000/- payable by the respondents 2 to 10 to supervise laying of a new No-confidence Motion by the respondents 2 to 10 against the petitioner before the Secretary Municipal Committee Bijbehara and to be taken up for discussion on 20th June 2022. Thus, a serving judicial officer, paid by the litigants, came to be placed in service of the litigants by the Additional District Judge, Anantnag without bothering to mention it on record as to under which provision of the CPC and the Civil Courts Act, 1977 Svt., such a venture was contemplated and carried out by the Additional District Judge, Anantnag and by which authority in and of law a Sub-Judge was commanded to act as supervisor in the internal political matters of a Municipal Committee. 15. The Sub Judge, so appointed as supervisor, came to carry out the diktat so issued to him and submitted his report dated 20th June 2022 to the Additional District Judge, Anantnag. From the perusal of the said report of the Sub Judge, as being the Supervisor, it reflects that said judicial officer not only acted as conductor of the meeting right from reading the purported no confidence motion moved afresh purportedly on the part of the respondents no. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 & 9 plus one more but also investigator and on spot judge also. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 & 9 plus one more but also investigator and on spot judge also. The alleged meeting on 20th June 2022 is said to have been requisitioned vide a notice dated 18th June 2022 issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Bijbehara and the purported no-confidence motion against the petitioner is reported to have been carried out by vote of 8 against 6. 16. Borrowing reliance from the said report of the Sub Judge as Supervisor, the Additional District Judge, Anantnag came to conduct fresh hearing of the matter in extenso and to pass a 30-page impugned judgment dated 20/07/2022 bearing a declaration that the petitioner has lost majority in the Municipal Committee Bijbehara and has no right to hold the office of the President, and then passing on a writ like directive to the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee Bijbehara to proceed as per sub rule 6, 7 & 8 of Rule 27 of Jammu & Kashmir Municipality (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Bye Laws 2021. The Additional District Judge, Anantnag parted with the judgment with wordings “appeal disposed of and be consigned to records after due compilation”. It is lost to imagination as to what fate the trial court order dated 21st April 2022 and suit of the petitioner was consigned by the Additional District Judge, Anantnag vide his said judgment. 17. Now, caught in this factual backdrop, this Court finds itself pondering as to which role has been served by the Additional District Judge, Anantnag whether as an amicus curia of the parties to the disputes or a judge of the cause in appeal before him. This Court is no doubt whatsoever that the Additional District Judge, Anantnag personalized the jurisdiction of the court and felt free to abandon the cause in appeal before him so as to be a mend maker for the Municipal Committee, Bijbehara’s political state of affairs. 18. Facts speak aloud from the record of the case that the Additional District Judge, Anantnag lost sight of the very jurisdiction, lest that of its bounds, in which the Court of Additional District Judge, Anantnag, was approached in appeal with respect to the matter. 18. Facts speak aloud from the record of the case that the Additional District Judge, Anantnag lost sight of the very jurisdiction, lest that of its bounds, in which the Court of Additional District Judge, Anantnag, was approached in appeal with respect to the matter. Once the trial court of Sub Judge, Anantnag had, by examining the prima facie nature of the petitioner’s case, the factor of balance of convenience and irreparable injury, refused temporary injunction relief in favor of the petitioner leaving the Communication no. MC/Bij/G/2022/1033-39 dated 20/04/2022 of the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Bijbehara to run its due course to its logical end, then what was meant for and expected of the appellate court of the Additional District Judge, Anantnag to do was simply to adjudge the legality of the said trial court order and pass its judgment thereupon leaving rest of things to proceed on their own course of nature. 19. The learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 10 has, with all vehemence at his command, tried to impress upon this Court that the end shall justify the means adopted by the Additional District Judge, Anantnag as the outcome of the indulgence granted by the Additional District Judge, Anantnag has been to pave the way for removal of the petitioner as president of the Municipal Committee Bijbehara and re-election of the new president for the remainder of the duration of the Municipal Committee. The learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 10 has pressed into service pleas of all hues right from the court serving the democratic restoration of the Municipal Committee, the no-objection of the petitioner’s counsel to the measure resorted to by the Additional District Judge, Anantnag resulting in denuding the petitioner any locus to petition this Court under article 227 COI to upset the exercise carried out by judicial intervention, the restricted scope for this Court to intervene under article 227 of the COI in the light of the pronouncement of the judgment in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty vs Rajindra Shanker, 2010 AIR SCW 6387. 20. 20. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 10 lay a very tempting trap but loose the bearings in the face of pointed query of this court as to wherefrom Order 43 rule 1(r) CPC did the Additional District Judge Anantnag draw the jurisdiction to create a new script viz a viz the order of the trial court in appeal. The learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 10 has argued that the powers of an appellate court are co-extensive with that of the trial court qua a civil suit as provided under the scheme of CPC and that being so the course of action adopted by the Additional District Judge, Anantnag can safely be salvaged. For sailing this plea, the learned Counsel refers to section 107 (1) & (2) and 108 CPC read with Order 43 rule 2 CPC which provides that rules of Order 41 shall apply, so far as may be, to appeal from Orders. This Court is taking due notice of said two sections read with Order 43 rule 2 CPC which read as under:- “Section 107: Powers of Appellate Court (1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, an Appellate Court shall have power:- (a) to determine a case finally; (b) to remand a case; (c) to frame issues and refer them for trial; (d) to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken. (2) Subject as aforesaid, the Appellate Court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by this Code on Courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein. Section 108: Procedure in appeals from appellate decrees and orders The provisions of this part relating to appeals from original decrees shall, so far as may be, apply to appeals:- (a) from appellate decrees, and (b) from orders made under this Code or under any special or local law in which a different procedure is not provided. Order 43(2): Procedure The rules of Order XLI shall apply, so far as may be, to appeals from orders.” 21. Order 43(2): Procedure The rules of Order XLI shall apply, so far as may be, to appeals from orders.” 21. Even if, for sake of saying, said submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 10 is accepted as correct, then also same cannot be read to enable an appellate court to possess a power to mutate the very script of the suit before the trial court and in the garb of co-extensive nature of power of an appellate court viz a viz the trial court in relation to a suit create a new fact situation alien to the original lis and carry forward its own perception-based outcome to a given civil suit. That will be nothing but an act of perversion of jurisdiction as has happened in the present case at the hands of the Additional District Judge, Anantnag. Everybody in the matter that is the learned Counsel of both sides, the trial court, the appellate court of Additional District Judge, Anantnag and lastly even this Court are at loss to know & show from the impugned judgment of the Additional District Judge, Anantnag as to what has been done to the trial court’s impugned order and labor invested to pass the said order which was taken in appeal, and also the paralysis of the civil suit lying on the file of the civil court to nobody’s understanding as to what disposal is left to be given to the suit. 22. In fact, at the best, in case the Additional District Judge, Anantnag found himself arrested with a concern to become the benefactor of the Municipal Committee, Bijbehara for its democratic set up on the asking of the parties, then the Additional District Judge, Anantnag ought to have re-directed the contesting parties to the trial court for working out their purported consensus to affect the desired outcome, that too, if possible and legally tenable, in the fitness of facts of the case because a civil court is also not meant to be a fishing and phishing forum for litigants to come for pleasure litigation. 23. However, it is a misplaced understanding of the learned Counsel of the respondents 2 to 10 as to the nature of appellate jurisdiction in the matter dealing with an appealable order the basis of passing which is discretion of the trial court. 23. However, it is a misplaced understanding of the learned Counsel of the respondents 2 to 10 as to the nature of appellate jurisdiction in the matter dealing with an appealable order the basis of passing which is discretion of the trial court. Such species of appeal, as held in para 14 of Wander Limited vs Antox India Private Limited (1990 (Supp.1) SCC 727) are acknowledged to be an Appeal on Principle affording an appellate court so much an empowerment to examine only if the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely by the court below or where the court below has ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant of refusal of interlocutory injunction. Instead of self-confining itself within the said limitation of appellate level examination, the Additional District Judge, Anantnag usurped the occasion to act a political manager for the affairs of the Municipal Committee, Bijbehara and the stake holders thereof. The indulgence, so lend, by the Additional District Judge, Anantnag not only undermined and wasted the work/order of the trial court but also projects and portrays a common perception that appellate level litigation can be a speculative venture amenable to any end/outcome depending upon the individual disposition & propensity of an appellate judge at a given point of time rather than judicial disposition of the judge and judicial disquisition of the matter. 24. The context in which an appellate court, while hearing an appeal from an appealable order passed in a civil suit, can by reference to section 108 CPC afford itself a position to exercise power envisaged under section 107 CPC is not available in the present case by any stretch of claim, so this court is not getting into examination of that aspect which is only of academic interest viz the present case. 25. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual and legal evaluation and discussion, the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Shalini Shyam Shetty case ( 2010 (8) SCC 329 ) is fully available to this Court and applicable in this case that in order to keep the tribunals and courts subordinate to it, within the bounds of their authority, a High Court has the jurisdiction of superintendence to interfere and in an appropriate cases the power can be exercised suo motu as well. When it is recognized for and expected from a High Court to exercise its power of superintendence by standard of high degree of judicial discipline, then surely the court of Additional District Judge, Anantnag in exercise of its limited appellate jurisdiction against an interlocutory order of refusal of injunction ought to have kept itself to the highest degree of judicial discipline which was to hear the appeal and dispose it of leaving for the parties and the court below to deal with the rest. In fact, this Court is in a state of disbelief that the Additional District Judge, Anantnag made a subordinate judicial officer to get paid with rupees twenty thousand by one of the parties to the dispute and carry out and conduct the No-confidence motion meeting in which the No-confidence motion was laid by the very same respondents from whom the fee of rupees twenty thousand was made payable to the judge so appointed leaving the judge as a privy to matter. 26. This Court finds itself posed with a call through this petition which is either to sanctify the administration of justice by the court of law or to salvage the political administration of a Municipal Committee. Without any iota and moment of hesitation, this Court is taking the first call to sanctify the administration of justice and to sensitize the courts and judges to follow judiciously the judicial discipline and decorum in dealing and deciding the cases within the bounds of their respective defined jurisdiction rather than defining their own jurisdiction to dispose the cases thereupon. Judicial Officers/Judges irrespective of their hierarchical placement must always bear in mind that by being the individuals in the Judicial Institution for the sake of administration of justice, they are not meant to individualize the Judicial Institution exposing the administration of justice to be bound by the individual’s whim and fancy. 27. Thus, this petition is allowed not by the fact that the petitioner has made out a case for the indulgence of this court but because the court has found out a cause in the case through the petition. The impugned order dated 20/07/2022 on file no. 27. Thus, this petition is allowed not by the fact that the petitioner has made out a case for the indulgence of this court but because the court has found out a cause in the case through the petition. The impugned order dated 20/07/2022 on file no. 52 titled Majid Nabi Khan vs Executive Officer, Municipal Committee Bijbehara & Ors, and the proceedings related there with and to the passing of the said order, of the Court of Additional District Judge, Anantnag are set at naught by holding the same as null and void ab initio. The District Judge, Anantnag is directed to recall the appeal on the file no. 52 of 2022 from the Court of Additional District Judge, Anantnag and to hear and adjudicate it by himself within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Failure to decide the matter within time given would be condoned only upon show of reasons on record by the Principal District Judge, Anantnag. Further, it is directed that the Principal District Judge, Anantnag shall call upon Mr. Mir Wajahat, the Sub Judge (Secretary DLSA) Anantnag to remit the fee of rupees twenty thousand (Rs.20,000/-) if received from and paid by the respondents 2 to 10 and the same shall then be returned to the respondents 2 to 10 against receipt. 28. A copy of this judgment be sent and notified to the Principal District Judge, Anantnag by the Registrar Judicial Srinagar of this Court at the earliest. Parties are also at liberty to seek and secure a certified copy of this judgment and place it before the Principal District Judge, Anantnag for notice and action in accordance therewith. 29. Disposed of.