sajad ahmad and others vs HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT on 31 December 2024

1. Sajad Ahmad, Age 48 Years S/o Late Ghulam Ali Zargar R/o Qamarwari Srinagar, Pincode 190010.

2. Showkat Ahmad Dar, Age 47 Years S/o Ghulam Mohd Dar R/o Hyderpora Srinagar, Pincode 190014.

3. Ajaz Ahmad, Age 45 Years S/o Gulam Mohammad Mugloo, R/o Mughal Mohalla Rainawari, Pin: 190010.

4. Bilal Ahmad Lone, Age 42 Years S/o: Ghulam ahmad Lone R/o: Ladoo Pampore, Pincode 191103. …….Applicant

(By Petitioner : Mr. Owais Shafi)

V/s

1. UT of J&K, through Commissioner-Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu.

2. Director, Colleges J&K State Srinagar/Jammu.

3. Nodal Principal Kashmir Division Colleges, Amar Singh College Srinagar. . …………Respondents

(By Advocate: Mr. Numan Malik, GA)

ORDER(ORAL)

Per.: M.S. Latif, Member(J)

1. Through the medium of the instant petition the petitioner seeks for the following reliefs which are reproduced as under- 8.1 Order or Direction, commanding the Noda propay one Kashmir Division Colleges, (non-applicant No.3), to allow the applicants to continue discharge their duties as lecturer/Assistant professors on contractual basis and not to fill the said vacancies by means of making academic arrangements afresh in view of the law propounded by Hon’ble Apex court. 8.2 Order or Direction, thereby commanding upon the non-applicants not to replace the applicants by another set of contractual engagement, with further direction to pay the wages to the applicants regularly, as also the withheld wages for which the applicants are entitled to. The non-applicants be further directed to continue the services of the applicants and allow them to discharge their duties without any impediment on part of the non- applicants. 8.3 Order or Direction, thereby commanding upon the non-applicants to pay the applicants on the principle of equal pay for equal work in as much as, the applicants are protected by virtue of law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 8.4 Any other writ, order, or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem proper, in the circumstances of the present case, may also be issued in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

2. Alongside the main reliefs the petitioner has also sought for the interim relief which are also reproduced as under-

That, pending disposal of the case, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the non- applicants, to allow the applicants to discharge their duties continue work, in the colleges of Kashmir Division, as they have spent more than 15 years in the non-applicant colleges, as the same would be in the large interest of justice and equity.

3. The case of the petitioners as projected in the O.A. is that the petitioners have been engaged in the respondent colleges in various disciplines on an academic arrangement. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners have been continuing past 10 years approximately. He further submits that the respondents have issued a fresh advertisement notice dated 06.07.2024, whereby, applications were invited for engagement of Lectures/Teaching Assistant/PTIs/Librarian on need based academic arrangement in Degree Colleges of Kashmir Division for the Academic Session 2024-25.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the advertisement could have not been issued as in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various Hon’ble High Court of the Country, wherein it is emphasized that contractual employee cannot be replaced by same academic arrangement, however, it can only be replaced by regular appointment. To this effect, he has referred a celebrated judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Harayana Vs. Pyara Singh 1992 SCC page 118 as also State of Punjab Vs. Ratan Lal 1985 page 268.

5. Admittedly, a contractual or ad-hoc employee cannot be replaced by similar arrangement, they can be only be replaced by regular employee, that too selected by regular selection. To this effect, I am also fortified by a catena of celebrated judgments, which are mentioned below-  Ram Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan.  Dr. Murari Lal Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan.  Jema Troppo Vs. State of Orissa.  Dilip Kumar Baral Vs. Biju Patnaik University of Technology.

 Krushna Chandra Panda Vs. State of Orissa.

6. In the recent case of Murad Ali Sajan Vs. U.T. of Jammu and Kashmir, wherein their Lordships specifically have held that one contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual employee. As such, no need to reiterate again that the same arrangement can only be replaced by regular employee.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and various High Courts from time to time, issuance of the instant advertisement notice would be exploiting the right of the petitioner that too in a welfare state.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the instant case is disposed of, by providing that the respondents will treat the instant O.A. as a representation. Respondents are also directed to consider and dispose of the same in the light of the law cited above by passing a speaking and reasoned order. It is expected that the respondent will do the needful with due dispatch.

10. Accordingly, the O.A. stands disposed of, along with its connected matters, if any.

(M.S. Latif) Member (J)

/Shubham 31.12.2024./ SHUBHAM SHARMA Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHARMA Date: 2025.01.06 12:07:56 +05'30'