Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Dr.Renu Gupta vs State Th.Higher Education Deptt.And ... on 14 July, 2016
Author: Ramalingam Sudhakar
Bench: Ramalingam Sudhakar
1
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
Dated 14-07-2016
SWP NO. 1594/2012 MP NO.2352/2014, MP
NO.2420/2012), MP NO.2474/2013 and Contempt
No.320/2014 & MP.26/2015
Dr. Renu Gupta Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir
thr. Commissioner/Secretary
to Government, Higher
& Ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar, Judge
Appearing Counsel:
For petitioner/Applicant (s) : M/s D.S. Chauhan, Rattan Lal
Gupta, Meharban Singh, Advocates
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Sharma, AAG.
Mr. D.C. Raina, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. F.A. Natnoo, Advocate, for J&K State Public Service Commission
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Digest/Journal/Media
ii) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Digest/Journal
1. Through the medium of this writ petition, petitioner seeks following reliefs:
"(A) Issue WRIT OF CERTIORARI quashing Section 3(b) of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 in so far as the said provision excludes the employees appointed initially on academic basis and subsequently on contractual basis being ultra virus the Constitution of India;
(B) Issue WRIT OF CERTIONARI quashing 2 the condition of eligibility for selection and appointment of Lecturers on academic arrangement in Advertisement Notification No.DIP/J-2176 dated June 22, 2012 which debars the Selection Committee from not considering/awarding marks for the experience gained while teaching in Private Degree Colleges duly recognized by Government of Jammu & Kashmir and affiliated with University of Jammu;
(C) Issue WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing and commanding the Respondents to award 3 marks to the writ petitioner for the experience gained by her while teaching in Private Degree Colleges duly recognized by Government of Jammu & Kashmir and affiliated with University of Jammu and place her at Serial No.1 of the Tentative Select List published for Lecturer in the discipline of Sanskrit in Government Degree Colleges:
(D) Issue WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing and commanding the Respondents to treat the writ petitioner as 'contractual appointee' and consider the case of the writ petition for regularization of her services as Lecturer in Government Degree College, Akhnoor, with effect from the dates the writ petitioner completed seven years of services as such and otherwise satisfies the conditions of 3 eligibility as laid down in Section 5 of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010;
(E) Issue WRIT OF PROHIBITION
restraining the Respondents from
replacing/substituting the writ petitioner by another set of contractual appointee or by transferring regularly recruited Lecturer from one institution to another till her case for confirmation/regularization against the posts of Lecturer is considered by the Empowered Committee constituted under Section 10 of Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010;
(F) Issue WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing and commanding Respondents to release the consolidated salary for vacation periods with effect from the dates the writ petitioner was engaged as Lecturer in Government Degree Colleges.
2. On the first relief prayed Sr. No. (A), it is the case of the petitioner that Section 3 of J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 (Act) provides for application of the Act, i.e., to such posts under Government as are held by persons having been appointed on adhoc or contractual basis including those appointed on consolidated pay provided that such 4 appointments have been made against the clear vacancies. The grievance of the petitioner is that by virtue of Section 3(b), the provision is made inapplicable to the persons appointed on tenure posts including those persons employed on academic arrangement for a fixed term in any Government Department, thereby they are denied the right to be regularized in terms of Section 5 of the Act. For better clarity, Sections 3 and 5 of the Act and the provisos are set out hereunder:
―3. Application of the Act. - The provisions of this Act shall apply to suh posts under the Government as are held by any person having been appointed on ad hoc or contractual basis including those appointed on consolidated pay provided that such appointments have been made against the clear vacancies, but shall not apply to:--
(a) persons appointed in terms of Government Order No.125-
GAD of 2001 dated 01-02- 2001, on contract basis in the personal sections of the Ministers or other authorities enjoying the status of a 5 Minister;
(b) persons appointed on tenure posts co-terminus with the life of the Project or Scheme of the State or Central Government, as the case may be, and those appointed on academic arrangement for a fixed term in any Government Department;
(c) non-governmental agencies or autonomous bodies or public sector undertakings or corporations or government companies or societies or other local authorities which have their own rules and regulations governing their functioning; and
(d) part-time or seasonal employees including those whose wages are paid from out of the local funds or contingent grants.‖ ―5. Regularization of ad hoc or contractual or consolidated appoint-
tees.-- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force or by judgment 6 order of any court or tribunal, the ad hoc or contractual or consolidated appointees referred to in section 3 shall be regularized on fulfillment of the following conditions, namely :--
(i) that he has been appointed
against a clear vacancy or
post;
(ii) that he continues as such
on the appointed day;
(iii) that he possessed the
requisite qualification and
eligibility for the post on the
date of his initial
appointment on ad hoc or
contractual or consolidated
basis as prescribed under
the recruitment rules
governing the service or
post;
(iv) that no disciplinary or
criminal proceedings are
pending against him on the
appointed day; and
(v) that he has completed
seven years of service as
such on the appointed day;
Provided that the
7
regularization of the eligible
ad hoc or contractual or
consolidated appointees
under this Act shall have
effect only from the date of
such regularization, irres-
pective of the fact that such
appointees have completed
more than seven years of
service on the appointed
date or thereafter but
before such regularization;
Provided further that any
ad hoc or contractual or
consolidated appointee who
has not completed seven
years service on the
appointed day shall
continue as such till
completion of seven years
and shall thereafter be
entitled to regularization
under this Act
3. The pith and substance of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appointments made earlier to coming into force of the Act whether on ad hoc basis or on contractual basis and subsequently on consolidated pay after coming into 8 effect the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, are denied regularization. The Government by design applying the Act is excluding petitioner on the ground that the petitioner's appointment is made on academic arrangement basis for a fixed term in a Government Department. This devious method deprives the petitioner of her right to be regularized. Whereas contract, ad-hoc and consolidated pay appointees are benefitted. The said provision is, therefore, arbitrary, illegal and constitutionally invalid. The petitioner's appointment is akin to that of appointment made on ad-hoc, consolidated pay or contract basis. Equals are treated unequally. The exclusion is discriminatory and malafide.
4. On this premise, the learned counsel pleaded that Section 3(b) of the Act, 2010 has to be held invalid and struck down. In support of this argument, it was primarily contended that the provision particularly clause (b) of Section 3 is a design to deny the benefit to the petitioner, who has been appointed and working in a post which is also in the nature of on ad-hoc or contractual appointment. It is a colourable exercise of 9 power and, therefore, it has to be struck down.
5. Per contra, Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned AAG appearing for the Government states that after coming into force the Act on 29th April, 2010, an Advertisement Notice was issued and pursuant thereto the petitioner was appointed on academic arrangement basis for the fixed term and she was working as such. She participated in the selection pursuant to the Advertisement and got appointment on academic arrangement basis only. Her appointment is not on contract, ad-hoc or consolidated basis to a specific post or a clear vacancy. There is marked difference in so far as appointment on academic arrangement for a fixed term. This is not relatable to specific post or a clear vacancy. It is a purely temporary arrangement for specific department and that is need based. In any event, he pleaded that since there is a distinction between appointment made on ad-hoc basis, contractual basis or on consolidated pay basis with that of the appointment made on academic arrangement basis for fixed term in a department, the petitioner has no right to challenge on the plea of arbitrariness or discrimination. There is no constitutional violation. 10
6. It is a separate and an independent method or manner by which appointment is made in a Government Department. Government in its wisdom has excluded the category of appointment made on academic arrangement basis for fixed term. The petitioner has no locus to challenge the wisdom of the Government in enacting such a provision. The language of Section 3 clearly provides that regularization will apply in respect of posts in the Government for which appointments are made on ad- hoc of contractual or consolidated pay. Therefore, it is referable to a particular post of a clear vacancy, whereas in this case, petitioner has been appointed in Higher Education Department on fixed term on an academic arrangement basis. So, both cannot be equated on same terms. There is no arbitrariness in that as alleged. In any event, he implored upon the Court not to accept the interpretation as propounded by the petitioner. Mr. Sharma relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Union of India and Another Vs. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal reported in AIR 1992 SC 96, which was relied upon in a subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Satheedevi Vs 11 Prasanna and Anr., reported in AIR 2010 SC 2777.
7. Their Lordships while dealing with the controversy in Deoki Nandan Aggarwal's case (supra), held in para Para 14 as under:
―We are at a loss to understand the reasoning of the learned Judges in reading down the provisions in paragraph 2 in force prior to November 1, 1986 as ―more than five years‖ and as ―more than four years‖ in the same paragraph for the period subsequent to November 1, 1986. It is not the duty of the Court either to enlarge the scope of the legislation or the intention of the legislature when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. The Court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation for the very good reason that it has no power to legislate. The power to legislate has not been conferred on the courts. The Court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there. Assuming there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature the Court could not go to its aid to correct or make up the deficiency. Courts shall decide what the law is and not what it should be. The Court of course adopts a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislature but could not legislate itself. But to invoke judicial activism to set at naught legislative judgment is subversive of the constitutional 12 harmony and comity of instrumentalities. Vide P.K. Unni v. Nirmala Industries, (1990) 1 SCR 482 at p. 488 : (AIR 1990 SC 933 at p.936), Mangilal v. Sugamchand RAthi (1965) 5 SCR 239 : (AIR 1965 SC
101), Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay 1959 Supp. (1) SCR 489 :
(AIR 1959 SC 459). Smt Hira Devi v. District Board, Shahjahanpur 1952 SCR 1122 at p.1131 : (AIR 1952 SC 362 at p.365), Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar (1953 SCR 533 at p.545) : (AIR 1953 SC 148 at p. 152), Gujarat Streel Tubes Ltd. V. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCR 146 : (AIR 1980 SC 1896), W. Narayanaswami v. G. Punnerselvam (1973) 1 SCR 172 at p. 182 : (AIR 1972 SC 2284 at p. 2289), N. S. Vardachari v. G. Vasantha Pai (1973) 1 SCR 886) : (AIR 1973 SC 38), Union of India v. Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth (1978) 1 SCR 423 : (AIR 1977 SC 2328) and Commr. of Sales Tax, U.P. v.
Auriaya Chamber of Commerce, Allahabad (1986) 2 SCR 430 at p. 438 : (AIR 1986 SC 1556 at pp. 1559-60). Modifying and altering the scheme and applying it to others who are not otherwise entitled to under the scheme will not also come under the principle of affirmative action adopted by courts sometimes in order to avoid discrimination. If we may say so, what the High Court has done in this case is a clear and naked usurpation of legislative power.‖ (Emphasis supplied)
8. Further, in para 10 of Satheedevi's case (supra), 13 their Lordships observed thus:
―Before proceeding further, we may notice two well recognized rules of interpretation of statutes. The first and primary rule of construction is that the intetntion of the legislature must be found in the words used by the legislature itself. If the words used are capable of one construction, only then it would not be open to the courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such hypothetical construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act. The words used in the material provisions of the statute must be interpreted in their plain grammatical meaning and it is only when such words are capable of two constructions that the question of giving effect to the policy or object of the Act can legitimatgely arise - Kanai Lal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan, 1958 SCR 30 360 : (AIR 1957 SC 907). The other important rule of interpretation is that the Court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation because it has no power to do so. The Court cannot add words to a statute or read words which are not therein. Even if there is a defect or an omission in the statute, the Court cannot correct the defect or supply the omission.--Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 323 : (AIR 1992 SC 96) : 1991 AIR SCW 2754), Shyam Kishori Devi v. Patna Municipal Corporation (1966) 3 SCR 466 :
(AIR 1966 SC 1678).‖ 14
9. On this premise, it is pleaded that the prayer to declare Section 3(b) as ultra vires should be dismissed.
10. I have considered the scope of the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, in particular the provisions Section and Section 3(b). It is evident that the regularization of ad-hoc or contractual or consolidated pay appointees is provided under the above stated provision of the Act with exclusion under Section 3(b).
11. Section 5 provides that five conditions that have to be satisfied for the purpose of seeking regularization. In these cases, as is evident from records, pursuant to Advertisement Notice, petitioner was appointed on academic arrangement for a fixed term.
12. Certificates issued by the authority reflect that the appointment was made on academic arrangement for a fixed term with break. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 5 do not get attracted to the petitioner. The provisions of Section 3(b) exclude appointments on academic arrangement for fixed term. That appears to be the intention of the legislature. This Court is not inclined to read the language of Section 3(b) in any 15 other way. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the two decisions (Union of India and Another Vs. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal AND Satheedevi Vs Prasanna and Anr.), referred to above, has deprecated Courts from rewriting, recasting or reframing terms or the words in the legislation. Appointment by way of academic arrangement made is not covered under Section 3 the Act. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to seek regularization under the Act.
13. Legislature has clearly indicated that only three categories, namely, appointments on ad-hoc, contractual and consolidated pay basis, are eligible to be considered for regularization subject to their satisfying the requirement or prescription of Section 5 of the Act. It does not apply to the case of appointment on academic arrangement. The Court finds no illegality or arbitrariness in the distinction made by the legislature. The Plain meaning of the words in Section 3 does not lead to any doubt. No other interpretation is plausible and the petitioner's attempt and interpretation is not convincing. There is no arbitrariness or malice as alleged. Accordingly, the challenge to the provisions of Section 3(b) is rejected.
16
14. With regard to reliefs at Sr. Nos. (B), the petitioner seeks to quashing the condition in the Advertisement Notice dated June 22, 2012 on the ground that marks should be given to Lecturers, who have performed duty in the Private Degree Colleges recognized by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir and affiliated with University of Jammu. The advertisement has not been directly challenged. The condition states that the experience certificates issued by the Private Colleges will not be entertained. The petitioner cannot ascribe error on the part of the respondents. If he/she is ineligible for the post advertised or does not satisfying the eligibility criteria in terms of the impugned Notification, she/he has no locus to call in question the Advertisement Notification. In this case, petitioner is selected and appointed as lecturer, therefore, the said relief has no relevance. Prayer (B) to award marks also becomes infructuous for the above. Consequently, both these prayers are declined as they have become redundant. Hence rejected.
15. Nevertheless, the question of awarding of marks gained out of the experience of teaching in the private 17 colleges contrary to the terms and conditions laid down by the Department concerned cannot be imposed. In any event, the petitioner has to satisfy the said terms and conditions. She cannot seek to impose any condition on the department concerned. In any event, since the petitioner claims to have been working as on date, on the strength of the Court order, she cannot continue forever. This position has been deplored by Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in a case titled Nagesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., reported as 2010 LIC 3245 : 2010 ILR (Allahabad) 547 : 2010 (4) All. LJ 638 : 2010 (6) ADJ 235. Their Lordships observed in para 18 as under:
―18. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove the reply to the said question would be in negative. As the appointment of the appellant being for a fixed term, he has no right to continue beyond the period of indicated in his appointment letter which is a time bound for a fix period. Extension of appointment by judicial order is not permissible under law as a fixed term appointment 18 would come to an end automatically by efflux of time.
In case, the contention of the appellant is accepted, it would be amount to rewriting the appointment letter allowing the appellant to continue without their being letter of appointment issued by the competent authority for a period after the term of his term/tenure of engagement is over. ―
16. In so far as the relief sought Sr. No.(D) for regularization after completion of seven years of service is concerned, it is inapplicable in terms of the clear stipulation/express provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act. A conjoint reading of Section 3 and Section 5 makes it abundantly clear that this relief cannot be granted, as the petitioners herein are engaged on academic arrangement for fixed terms. Since the provision of Section 3(b) of the Act is upheld in batch of writ petitions, lead case as SWP No.1525/2013, Rajni Kumari Vs. State thr. Education Department & Ors., decided on 14-07-2016, the relief of regulari-zation cannot be granted and is rejected.
17. The next relief Sr. No.(E) to prohibit the 19 respondents from replacing/substituting the petitioner by another set of contractual appointee or by transferring regularly recruited Lecturer from one institution to another till her case for confirmation/regularization against the post of Lecturer is considered by the Empowered Committee constituted under Section 10 of the Act 2010. This prayer has three aspects. One is the confirmation and second is the regularization. Ist two parts of the prayer are inapplicable in the case of the petitioner as her appointment was made on academic arrangement basis. The third aspect of this prayer is replacing contract employees by another set contract employees.
18. This Court has taken a view in case titled Vidhu Puri & Ors. Vs. State thr. Higher & Tech. Edu. Deptt. & Ors. and batch of cases (SWP No.209/ 2003 and connected matters) decided on 04-07- 2016 on the basis of decisions considered and declined in Division Bench case titled State of J&K Vs. Afshan Majid, reported as 2008 (2) J.K.J. 550, which decision was again followed by the Single Judge, to be more specific in the case titled Suman Sharma Vs. State of J&K, reported as 2009 (2) J.K.J. 20
173. The same was followed in subsequent decisions. This Court also followed in its earlier decision in batch of writ petitions, lead case being SWP No.209/2003, Vidhu Puri & Ors. Vs. State thr. Higher & Tech. Edu. Deptt. & Ors., decided on 14-07-2016.
19. It is the case of respondents that they are not resorting to such a procedure of replacing contract teachers/lecturers by another set of contract teachers/lecturers. The engagement is need based. In any event, the lecturers on contract or engaged on academic arrangement cannot seek to restrain the government from engaging lecturers on contract engagement or academic arrangement as they themselves are beneficiary of such procedure. This issue becomes academic because petitioners are appointed on academic arrangement.
20. On this issue also, Courts have taken a view to safeguard ousting of contract engagements only for the purpose of accommodating new incumbents on contract basis. In this regard, it will be useful to refer judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh and Others reported as AIR 1991 SC 223 referring to the 21 following observations:
―............. In State of Haryana Versus Piara Singh, 1992 (4) SC 118 of 152, this Court had held that the normal rule is recruitment through the prescribed agency but due to administrative exigencies, an adhoc or temporary appointments may be made in such situation, this Court held that efforts should always be made to replace such adhoc or temporary employee by regularly selected employees, as early as possible.
Temporary employees also would get liberty to compete along with others for regular selection but if he does not get selected, he must give way to the regularly selected candidates. Appointment of the regularly selected candidates cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an adhoc or temporary employee.
Adhoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another adhoc or temporary employee. He must be replaced only by regularly selected employee.‖ 22
21. The said ratio will apply to the petitioner only if she is sought to be replaced by another teacher/lecturer on academic arrangement.
22. The relief of prohibiting the respondents from replacing/ substituting the petitioner by transferring regularly recruited Lecturer from one institution to another till her case for confirmation/regularization against the post of Lecturer is considered, has been dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Dr. Kishore Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported as 1997(1) 107 : 1997 (3) SCC 209, wherein their Lordships observed as under:
―It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since vacancies are existing the appointment of Dr. Solanki by transfer could not be used as a means to terminate the service of the petitioner. We fail to appreciate the contention. It is fairly agreed by the learned counsel that the petitioner has no right to the post and as soon as a duly selected candidate is posted in his place, he has to give place to the duly selected candidate. But his contention is that since Dr. Solanki 23 was selected earlier to the order passed by the Tribunal and had been appointed on his transfer, it cannot be used as a means to terminate the services of the petitioner. His contention absolutely has no force. As soon as the duly selected candidate is posted, whether directly or by transfer, necessarily the petitioner has to give place to such a candidate. The petitions, therefore, do not merit interference.‖ Therefore, the said plea has no legal basis.
23. This Court hastens to hold that academic arrangement teachers/lecturers cannot seek to hold on to their post for ever. If they are found not to be up to the mark or efficient then their continuation will be a question mark. It is for the authorities to decide the best course of action in a non-arbitrary manner. If academic arrangement teachers/lecturers seek extension then they have to make a representation for considering the extension of service, which can be considered on its own merits.
24. In this regard, it will be useful to refer to the decision of this Court where a plea of retention when 24 employed on contractual basis, Division Bench of this Court considered and declined the claim in case titled State of J&K Vs. Afshan Majid, reported as 2008 (2) J.K.J. 550, which decision was followed by the Single Judge, to be more specific in the case titled Suman Sharma Vs. State of J&K, reported as 2009 (2) J.K.J. 173.
26. In that in paragraph 18, it has been held as follows:
―18. For the reasons mentioned above and in view of the afore-
quote observations made by the Division of this Court in cases referred to above, these petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-
I/ That the petitioners are not entitled to regularization of their services against the posts they have been engaged on contract/temporary basis as the said engagement has been done without following any procedure as provided for filling up the post belong to State-Cadre;
II/ That the petitioners shall be 25 allowed to continue till the posts are filled up by a regular selection process. The State respondent, however, shall be free to continue this engagement of the petitioners only if there is requirement to engage them keeping in view the interest of students who are studying in particular colleges;‖
27. In the light of the above, petitioner appointed on academic arrangement has no legal right to seek regularization dehors the Act.
28. The last prayer Sr. No.(F) is with regard to release of her consolidated salary for vacation periods with effect from the date the petitioner was engaged as Lecturer in different Government Degree Colleges. For this relief, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has strongly and repeatedly deprecated the process of appointment of teachers on ad hoc basis on the commencement of the year and terminating their services at its end, thus denying them the salary for vacation period. Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied upon two judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 26 cases titled Rattan Lal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, reported as (1985) 4 SCC 43 (Para 3) : AIR 1987 SC 478; and Sri Rabinarayan Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa & Ors., reported as AIR 1991 SC 1286 (Paras 8 & 9).
29. In Rattan Lal's case (supra), their Lordships held in paragraph 3 as under:
―3. We strongly deprecate the policy of the State Government under which ‗ad hoc' teachers are denied the salary and allowances for the period of the summer vacation by resorting to the fictional breaks of the type referred to above. These ‗ad hoc' teachers shall be paid salary and allowances for the period of summer vacation as long as they hold the office under this order. Those who are entitled to maternity or medical leave, shall also be granted such leave in accordance with the rules.‖
30. While dealing with this issue, their Lordships in Rabinarayan Mohapatra's case (supra) observed in paragraphs 8 & 9 as under:
―8. The appellant was appointed on July 12, 1982 and has been working with the approval of the authorities for almost 4 years with short breaks. The managing committee is still utilising his services 27 though there is no approval by the educational authorities for the period subsequent to 1986. It is no body's case that his services were ever terminated on grounds of inefficiency or misconduct. The case of the appellant is, thus, fully covered by Section 3 of the Validation Act. We are of the view that the High Court erred in denying the benefit of the Validation Act to the appellant on the ground that his initial appointment for 89 days was conditioned by the stipulation that he would continue until replaced by a candidate from the select list. The High Court read into the Act what was not there. In response to the notice issued in the Special Leave Petition the managing committee through its Secretary-cum-Head Master has stated that the appellant is still continuing to serve as Hindi teacher in the school under the orders of the managing committee.‖
9. We therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and direct the respondents to treat the appellant as the regularly appointed Hindi teacher in the school with effect from July 12, 1982.
The appellant shall be entitled to his salary, including the salary for summer vacations and other breaks which must be taken as non est, from the date of his regular appointment i.e. July 12, 1982. The respondents are directed to pay the arrears of salary and other emoluments due to the appellant as a result of his 28 regularization within a period of 3 months from today.‖
31. The factual aspect of the petitioner's case differs by the terms of the appointment. The petitioner will have to approach authority and establish her claim. It is for the petitioner to approach the Authority concerned by way of a representation in this behalf. The same may be considered having regard to the facts and circumstances of the petitioner's case within a reasonable period.
32. As a result prayers (A), (B), (C) & (D) are dismissed. Prayer (E) ordered as indicated. Prayer (F) ordered as above.
33. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms along with connected MPs. Interim directions, if any, passed in the writ petition shall stand vacated.
34. At this juncture, Mr. Sharma, learned AAG, submits that in view of the final order passed in this writ petition, the Contempt Petition filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner has become infructuous. Petitioner's counsel concedes as above. Consequently, 29 the Contempt Petition filed in this case is closed and stands disposed of along with connected MP.
(Ramalingam Sudhakar) Judge Jammu 14-07-2016 Secretary