JUDGMENT : (Sanjeev Kumar, J.) : 1. This intra-court appeal by the State of Jammu and Kashmir (now Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir) is directed against an order and judgment dated 29.04.2017 passed by the Single Judge of this Court [“Writ Court”] in SWP No. 486/2017, whereby the writ court has allowed the writ petition of the respondent No.1 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘writ petitioner’ for convenience) has been allowed and a direction is issued to the appellant herein i.e. Commissioner/Secretary to Government, PHE, Irrigation & FC Department to accord approval for regularization of writ petitioner’s service against the vacant post of Junior Assistant in Ravi Tawi, Irrigation Complex, Jammu under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 [“the Act of 2010”]. 2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Amit Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants a quick recapitulation of the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition would be worthwhile. 3. The writ petitioner, who was claimably having qualification of BA and possessing a diploma in computers, was engaged as typist on the recommendations of the then Hon’ble Minister for PHE, I&FC department, vide order No. 614-16 dated 28.04.2005 issued by the Chief Engineer, Ravi Tawi, Irrigation Complex, Jammu. The engagement of the writ petitioner on consolidated remuneration of Rs.3000/- per month which was initially for a period of three months was extended from time to time. While the petitioner was still performing her duties as typist on consolidated wages, the appellants came up with an enactment by the name of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 which inter alia provided for regularization of eligible persons having been appointed on adhoc, contractual or consolidated basis for a period of seven years, provided such appointments had been made against the clear vacancies. 4. The writ petitioner completed her seven years continuous service in the year 2012 and, therefore, she claiming to be eligible for regularization under the Act of 2010 approached the appellants for processing her case for such regularization. A formal application was moved by the writ petitioner on 01.06.2012 before the Chief Engineer, Ravi Tawi, Irrigation Complex, Jammu through proper channel. The writ petitioner completed her seven years continuous service in the year 2012 and, therefore, she claiming to be eligible for regularization under the Act of 2010 approached the appellants for processing her case for such regularization. A formal application was moved by the writ petitioner on 01.06.2012 before the Chief Engineer, Ravi Tawi, Irrigation Complex, Jammu through proper channel. The Chief Engineer, Ravi Tawi, Irrigation Complex, Jammu vide his communication bearing No. RTIC/Estt/4729-30 dated 24.01.2017 addressed to the Commissioner/Secretary to Government, PHE, Irrigation & Flood Control Department, Jammu recommended the case of the writ petitioner for her regularization against the vacant post of Junior Assistant under direct recruitment quota available in RTIC. The Chief Engineer, in the communication aforesaid, made it amply clear to the Administrative Department that as per his records the writ petitioner had been working on consolidated basis since 28.04.2005 and had since completed more than seven years continuous service. He also apprised the Administrative Department that the case of the writ petitioner for regularization stood submitted to the Administrative Department vide Letter No. RTIC/2039-40 dated 14.08.2012 and Letter No. RTIC/Estt/4732-33 dated 27.12.2014. The Chief Engineer also clarified and further intimated to the administrative department categorically that the writ petitioner had been working as computer operator/typist on consolidated basis against the post of Junior Assistant under direct quota and that she had been working continuously from the date of her appointment without any break. Ordinarily, the Administrative Department should have considered the case of the writ petitioner on the basis of recommendations made by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation & Flood Control department and issued the order of her regularization under the Act of 2010 but, as is usual with the people at the helm of affairs, the case of the petitioner was kept pending seeking one clarification after the other from the subordinate officers. After waiting for almost five years for the outcome of her case for regularization, the writ petitioner approached this Court by way of SWP No. 486/2017. 5. When the writ petition was taken up for consideration, the then Deputy Advocate General, Mr. After waiting for almost five years for the outcome of her case for regularization, the writ petitioner approached this Court by way of SWP No. 486/2017. 5. When the writ petition was taken up for consideration, the then Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Ranjit Singh appearing for the appellants took a fair stand having regard to the admitted facts of the case of the writ petitioner and submitted before the writ court that the case of the petitioner would be considered for regularization against the post of Junior Assistant under the Act of 2010. On the basis of consensus of both the sides, the writ petition was disposed of at the motion hearing stage by issuing a direction to the Commissioner/Secretary to Government, PHE, Irrigation & Flood Control Department to accord approval for regularization of petitioner’s service against the vacant post of Junior Assistant in Ravi Tawi, Irrigation Complex, Jammu in terms of the Act of 2010. The writ petition was finally disposed of by the writ court vide order and judgment dated 29.04.2017 which is assailed by the appellants herein before this Court in the instant appeal. 6. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General, challenges the judgment impugned primarily on the ground that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the writ court ought not to have issued mandamus directing the appellants to accord approval for regularization of the writ petitioner under the Act of 2010. The best that writ court could have done was to direct the appellants to consider the case of the petitioner under the Act of 2010 and that would have given opportunity to the appellants to look into the eligibility or otherwise of the writ petitioner for such regularization under the Act. He also assails the impugned judgment on the ground that the writ petitioner not having been appointed against the clear vacancy of Junior Assistant was not entitled to the benefit of the Act of 2010. 7. Per contra, Mr. Achal Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the communication of the Chief Engineer dated 24.01.2017 is clear and unequivocal and in the face of the aforesaid communication it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants to say that the writ petitioner was not appointed against the clear vacancy of Junior Assistant. 7. Per contra, Mr. Achal Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the communication of the Chief Engineer dated 24.01.2017 is clear and unequivocal and in the face of the aforesaid communication it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants to say that the writ petitioner was not appointed against the clear vacancy of Junior Assistant. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 further submits that under similar set of circumstances one Yogeeta D/o Sh. Jawahir Lal, who was also appointed on the recommendations of the Hon’ble Minister on 04.07.2005 was regularized by the appellants vide Government Order No. 353-PW (Hyd) of 2014 dated 25.09.2014. He submits that the writ petitioner had specifically pleaded that aspect in the writ petition, however, the writ court did not advert to the aforesaid fact of the matter probably because of the concession given by the then Deputy Advocate General that the appellants would consider the case of the petitioner under the Act of 2010. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the writ court is legally perfect and unquestionable. As is evident from the communication of Chief Engineer dated 24.01.2017, the petitioner having been appointed as computer operator/typist on consolidated basis on 28.04.2005 has been working against the vacant post of Junior Assistant under direct quota available in the Ravi Tawi, Irrigation Complex, Jammu. She, thus, completed seven years continuous and uninterrupted service on 27.04.2012. She is B.A, B.Ed and, therefore, eligible to hold the post. She also does not suffer from any disqualification to seek a benefit of the Act of 2010. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that Miss Yogeeta, who was also appointed along with the writ petitioner, in the similar manner by the Chief Engineer vide his order dated 04.07.2005 has already been considered by the appellants and regularized under the Act of 2010. 9. We could not find any dissimilarity between the case of the writ petitioner and that of Miss Yogeeta. The order of engagement of Miss Yogeeta is ditto copy of the order of engagement issued in favour of writ petitioner. 10. 9. We could not find any dissimilarity between the case of the writ petitioner and that of Miss Yogeeta. The order of engagement of Miss Yogeeta is ditto copy of the order of engagement issued in favour of writ petitioner. 10. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the only direction that could have been issued by the writ court while allowing the writ petition was to call upon the appellants to complete the requisite formalities and order the formal regularization of the writ petitioner under the Act of 2010. The eligibility of the writ petitioner for regularization under the Act of 2010 is not disputed by the appellants except that the initial appointment of the writ petitioner was not against any vacant post. As is already clarified by the Chief Engineer vide his communication dated 24.01.2017 that pursuant to recommendation of Hon’ble Minister he accommodated the writ petitioner by offering her engagement as typist on the vacant post of Junior Assistant under the direct quota which was available in RTIC. It is not the case of the appellants that available post of Junior Assistant under direct quota available in RTIC against which writ petitioner was working was either referred to the Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Board for making selection or was otherwise substantively filled up. 11. For the foregoing reasons and also on the ground that the writ petitioner could not have been discriminated vis-à-vis Miss Yogeeta, who was similarly situate with the writ petitioner, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Respondents shall comply with the writ court judgment and issue formal order of regularization of the writ petitioner within a period of two months. We make it clear that regularization of the writ petitioner shall take effect from the date of regularization of Miss Yogeeta. This, however, shall be purely on notional basis and without any monetary benefits.