Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Saajid Siraj Bala Son Of Siraj-Ud-Din ... vs University Of Kashmir Through Its ... on 22 July, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
LPA 08/2023
Reserved on: 16.07.2024
Pronounced on: 22 .07.2024
Saajid Siraj Bala son of Siraj-ud-Din Bala, resident of Lal Bazar, Umer
Colony, Sriangar.
Appellants(s)
Through: - Mr. B.A.Bashir Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Falak Bashir Advocate
Vs.
1 University of Kashmir through its Vice-Chancellor Hazratbal,
Srinagar.
2. Vice-Chancellor, University of Kashmir, Srinagar.
3. Registrar, University of Kashmir.
4. Dean Academic Affairs, University of Kashmir
5. Director, USIC, University of Kashmir.
6. Dean Faculty of Law, University of Kashmir.
7. Head, Department of Computer Science, University of Kashmir
8. Director, IT& SS, University of Kashmir.
9. Deputy Registrar, Administrative TW, University of Kashmir.
...Respondent(s)
Through: - Mr.Syed Faisal Qadri Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Asif Maqbool Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR,JUDGE
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.A.CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev J 1 This intra-Court appeal by the appellant Saajid Siraj Bala filed under clause-12 of the Letters Patent is directed against an order and judgment dated 15.12.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court ["the writ Court"] in SWP No. 2241/2013 whereby the Writ Court, having found no merit therein, has dismissed the same and 2 rejected the claim of the appellant seeking change of his designation from „Trainee Engineer‟ to „Scientist-B‟.
2 Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. B.A.Bashir learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, we deem it appropriate to briefly refer to the factual antecedents leading to filing of this appeal.
3 The appellant, possessing the qualification of B.E Information Technology, from Pune University, was engaged as „Trainee Engineer‟ on consolidated salary of Rs.5000/- on 30.05.2009. Apprehending his ouster in the year 2010, the appellant filed SWP No. 1847/2010 seeking, inter alia, a direction to the respondents to regularise his services as and when such exercise was undertaken by the respondents and allow him to continue on the post till then. A Single Bench of this Court, while issuing notice to the other side in the petition, also directed maintenance of status quo qua the position of the petitioner till the filing of objections. The petitioner, thus, continued as „Trainee Engineer‟ on contractual basis on the strength of an interim order passed in the aforesaid writ petition. While the aforesaid writ petition was pending adjudication, the petitioner moved a representation before the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University on 19.03.2013 seeking similar treatment as had been given by the University to Mr. Muheet Ahmed Bhat and Mr. Majid Zaman. The petitioner also filed SWP No. 503/2013 seeking a direction to the respondent-university to decide his representation. SWP No. 503/2013 was disposed on 05.04.2013 directing the respondents to consider the representation stated to have been moved by the petitioner on 3 19.03.2013 and communicate the decision taken thereon to the petitioner.
4 With a view to complying with the order and consider the representation filed by the petitioner, a Committee of officers of the University, headed by Dean, Academic Affairs was constituted. The Committed looked into the grievance projected by the petitioner in his representation and opined that the petitioner, who was not borne on the University establishment, was not entitled to change of his designation or grant of pay scale of Information Officer. It is this rejection note of the Committee which the petitioner had assailed in SWP No. 2241/2013 dismissed by the writ Court vide order and judgment impugned in this appeal.
5 The impugned judgment is challenged by the appellant primarily on the following grounds;
(i)That the appellant is similarly situated with Mr. Muheet Ahmad Bhat and Mr. Majid Zaman, who were in identical terms engaged as „Trainee Engineers‟ on 14.01.2004 and were later on re-designated as „Information Officers‟ in the pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 w.e.f 13.03.2004 i.e the date when they completed their training. The Writ Court did not appreciate that the petitioner had been subjected to hostile discrimination vis a vis aforesaid two Trainee Engineers; and,
(ii) That the writ Court did not appreciate that through the process of re-designation adopted by the competent Authority, the nomenclature of the post of „Trainee Engineer‟ had changed to „Information Officer‟ and then Scientist-B and in terms of a Division Bench Judge of this 4 Court, the petitioner was entitled to be regularised against the post held by him ie Scientist-B. 6 The appeal is resisted by the respondents. The decision of the University rejecting the claim of the petitioner to be absorbed/appointed as Scientist-B following the recommendations of the Committee constituted for the purpose is sought to be justified by Mr. Faisal Qadri learned Senior Counsel representing the University. 7 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 does not call for any interference and the view taken by the writ Court is correct in law and unexceptionable.
8 Indisputably, the petitioner along with three others came to be engaged as „Trainee Engineers‟ on contractual basis to assist the Information Technologists of the University for designing, developing and updating the University website and other allied matters. The petitioner was engaged on consolidated salary of Rs.5000/- per month. The petitioner continued as „Training Engineer‟ for almost a year. Being aware that his contractual engagement was linked with a project of designing, developing and updating the website and would come to an end with the accomplishment of task, he advisedly approached this Court through SWP No. 1847 of 2010 and succeeded in persuading this Court to pass an order of status quo qua his services as Trainee Engineer. The petitioner continued as Training Engineer on the strength of an interim order passed in SWP No. 1847/2010. As noted above, while SWP No. 1847/2010 was pending adjudication, the petitioner on 5 the basis of some development that had taken place in the year 2003/2004 and 2008, moved a representation before the Vice-Chancellor of the Kashmir University claiming parity with Mr Muheet Ahmad Bhat and Mr. Majid Zaman in the month of March, 2013.
9 Without waiting for the representation to be considered, the petitioner strategically filed SWP No. 503/2013 which was disposed of by a single Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.04.2013 directing the University to consider the representation of the petitioner and communicate the decision taken thereon to the petitioner. With a view to considering the representation, a Committee of officers headed by Dean, Academic Affairs was constituted which, upon thorough examination of the case of the petitioner, concluded that the petitioner was not even borne on the cadre of the University and, therefore, was not entitled to change of his designation from „Trainee Engineer‟ to Scientist-B and the decision was communicated to the petitioner. It is this decision of the Committee taken in its meeting held on 05.06.2013 that was called in question by the petitioner in SWP No. 22412013. The petition was considered by the Writ Court in the light of rival contentions and the material on record and the writ Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to be re-designated as Scientist-B and placed in the regular pay scale attached to the said post. The writ Court also held that the petitioner was not, in any manner, similarly situated with Mr. Muheet Ahmad Bhat and Mr. Majid Zaman and, therefore, was not entitled to claim parity.
610 We have examined the judgment of the writ court minutely in the light of the submissions made. We could not find any infirmity in the judgment impugned. The petitioner was engaged as „Trainee Engineer‟ on contractual basis to assist the Information Technologists in designing, development and up-dation of the University website. The engagement of the petitioner was obviously linked to a project and would have come to an end on the accomplishment of the task. The petitioner, however, continued on the strength of Court orders and even got the benefit of regularisation as „Helper‟ in terms of the scheme of regularisation prepared by the University. 11 The claim of the petitioner, that he ought to have been treated on a par with Mr. Muheet Ahmed and Mr. Majid Zaman and placed in the regular pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 and designated as „Information Officer‟ is without any merit and, therefore, has been rightly rejected by the University. So far as Mr. Muheet Ahmad Bhat and Mr. Majid Zaman are concerned, they came to be engaged as „Trainee Engineers‟ on consolidated salary of Rs.8000-1752-13500 and other allowances vide order dated 14.01.2004 pursuant to a proper selection process conducted by the University after issuing an advertisement notification dated 24.10.2003. The aforesaid persons faced the competition and were, on selection, appointed as „Trainee Engineers‟ and put on a training at Bangalore/Mysore at the expense of University. Mr. Muheet Ahmad Bhat and Mr. Majid Zaman were extended unequivocal promise and commitment that on completion of their training and project, they will be designated as „Information 7 Officers‟ and placed in the regular pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500. They accepted the engagement, underwent the requisite training and completed the project and, therefore, became entitled to be designated as „Information Offices‟ in the pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500. The University stood by its commitment and vide order dated 4.4.2008 appointed the aforesaid persons as „Information Officers‟ in the regular pay scale of R.8000-13500 plus usual allowances. It needs to be noticed that neither at the time of their engagement as „Trainee Engineers‟, nor at the time of their appointment as „Information Officers‟ in the regular pay sale, the petitioner was in service of the University. He came to be to be engaged as „Trainee Engineer‟ on consolidated salary of Rs.5000/- in the year 2009, that too, without facing any selection process. To be precise and clear, the engagement of the petitioner along with three others as „Training Engineers‟ was a backdoor entry in the University. The engagement of the petitioner, as is apparent from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor to engage four persons including the petitioner as Training Engineers, was purely contractual and was to come to an end on the accomplishment of the task of designing, developing and updating the website. His job profile was that of an assistant to the Information Technologists.
12 Viewed from any angle, the petitioner cannot compare himself with Mr. Muheet Ahmad Bhat and Majid Zaman. They entered the University through legitimate means i.e after facing a proper selection process initiated pursuant to an open advertisement notification issued in this regard. They were made to know that they will be put on training for some time and on successful completion, 8 they would be re-designated/appointed as „Information Officers‟ in the regular pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500. This was not so indicated in the case of the petitioner. Had the petitioner not approached the Court by way of SWP No. 1847/2010, he would not have been in service after the accomplishment of the task for which he was engaged. 13 We are in complete agreement with the writ Court that the petitioner, who was not holing any post on consolidated basis when the University Council adopted the roadmap approved by the Financial Advisor, Universities and communicated vide letter dated 20.08.2013. Pursuant to the resolution aforementioned, the University of Kashmir vide notification dated 03.09.2014 issued guidelines on the basis of which the persons engaged on casual/contractual basis in the University were to be regularised. As per the notification (supra), all casual/contractual engagees, who had completed seven years of uninterrupted service and had been paid regularly by the University from available resources, were to be regularised against the posts held by them and, in case, no posts were available, they were to be designated as Helpers by creating supernumerary posts. It was further provided that Helpers so appointed could subsequently move to the clear posts/vacancies in the formal organisational hierarchy as and when these would become available and the supernumerary/temporary posts of Helpers vacated by the incumbents would automatically get abolished. It is in light of the aforementioned guidelines issued by the University pursuant to the roadmap approved by the Financial Advisor, the petitioner, who was not holding any substantive post borne on the cadre of University, was adjusted as Helper. There should be no dispute 9 that Training Engineer was never and is not even today a post borne on the cadre of Kashmir University. It is absolutely wrong to contend that the post of Training Engineer available in Kashmir University was re- designated as Information Officer. The reliance made by Mr. Bashir learned Senior Counsel on the order dated 04.04.2008 passed in respect of Mr. Muheet Ahmad Bhat and Mr. Majid Zaman is totally misplaced. 14 From a bare reading of the aforesaid order, it clearly transpires that there were no posts of Training Engineer available in the University those were re-designated as „Information Officers‟, rather two Training Engineers, namely Mr. Muheet Ahmat Bhat and Mr. Majid Zaman, who had been extended an unequivocal promise that they would, on completion of training, be designated as „Information Officers‟ were placed in the regular pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 plus usual allowances and designated as „Information Officers. 15 Indisputably, the Information Officer is a post borne on the cadre of University. It is this post that was later on re-designated as Scientist-B. The plea of Mr. Bashir that engagement of the petitioner as „Training Engineer‟ should be treated against a clear vacancy of Training Engineer and, therefore, he along with the post should be re-designated as „Information Officer‟/‟Scientist-B and placed in the regular pay scale and should not be regularised as Helper, is without any basis and deserves to be turned down. The reasons have already been explained, in extenso, hereinabove. Training Engineer was never a post borne on the cadre of University, nor was this post ever re-designated as „Information Officer‟/‟Scientist-B‟. To repeat, the case of the petitioner is not comparable with, nor is on a par with 10 Mr. Muheet Ahmad Bhat and Mr. Majid Zaman and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any parity with the aforesaid persons. 16 For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.
(M.A.CHOWDHARY) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
Srinagar
22.07.2024
Sanjeev
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable:Yes
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
23.07.24