HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on 29.05.2025 Pronounced on 06.06.2025 CJ Court LPA No. 89/2025 c/w LPA No. 87/2025 Amit Kumar …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Karman Singh Johal, Adv. v/s Union Territory of J&K and others …. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. S. S. Nanda, Sr. AAG Ms. Rozina Afzal, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE. JUDGMENT Per Oswal-J 1. Facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals arising out of the order dated 01.05.2025, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant- Rajesh Kumar bearing SWP No. 2505/2025 came to be dismissed by the learned writ court are that an advertisement bearing No. ACDD/MGNREGA/ASS/2011-12/8385-12/8385-8400 dated 28.11.2011 came to be issued/published by the Assistant Commissioner Development- respondent No. 3 herein, whereby the applications were invited for engagement of supporting staff on ‘Need Basis’ under MGNREGA for the left-over Panchayats including the Panchayat of Arnora, Upper Block Ghat, Doda. 2 LPA Nos. 87/2025 and 89/2025 2. The writ petitioner applied for engagement as Gram Rozgar Sahayak but could not succeed, as such, preferred a writ petition bearing SWP No. 1356/2013, which came to be dismissed along with other connected writ petitions vide order dated 09.07.2015. Aggrieved of the dismissal of the writ petition, the writ petitioner assailed the order dated 09.07.2015, however the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against said order dated 09.07.2015, after taking note of the submissions that selections/engagements stand made, rendering the appeals infructuous, was disposed of vide order dated 03.09.2015 with liberty to the appellant/writ petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in case he is aggrieved of the engagements so made. 3. The writ petitioner thereafter filed SWP No. 2505/2015 on 07.09.2015 for prohibiting the official respondents from making selection amongst the four candidates from serial Nos. 2 to 5 shown in the short list and for commanding the respondents for making fresh selection of Gram Rozgar Sahayak for Panchayat Upper Arnora. It was stated in the writ petition that in terms of provisional select list dated 04.08.2015, the selected candidate i.e. respondent No. 5-Arjun Singh did not join within the stipulated period of seven days after objections to the provisional select list, due to his employment as Relationship Executive with the J&K Bank, therefore, the official respondents cannot select any candidate from the four candidates figuring in the short list. Besides, it was also contended that he was deliberately kept out of the short list. After the respondent No. 5 did not join as Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Panchayat Upper Arnora, the writ petitioner 3 LPA Nos. 87/2025 and 89/2025 approached the official respondents with the request for his continuation and engagement but the official respondents did not accede to his request, which prompted the writ petitioner to approach the Court through the medium of writ petition bearing SWP No. 2505/2015. 4. The official respondents filed the response to the writ petition stating therein that the writ petitioner had earlier filed SWP No. 901/2012 being petitioner No. 6, SWP No. 1859/2013 being petitioner No. 2, SWP No. 1356/2013 being petitioner No. 2 and SWP No. 782/2012 being petitioner No. 3 therein and all these petitions, including the others were dismissed by a common order dated 09.07.2015. 5. Learned Single Judge, while dismissing the earlier writ petition, preferred by the writ petitioner along with others, held that initial appointment of all the petitioners including the writ petitioner was contrary to the rules and regulations and the engagement of the writ petitioner was temporary and on need based. It was further stated that the writ petitioner competed in the selection process for Gram Rozgar Sahayak in the year 2012 and he should have immediately submitted the application venting his grievances for redressal, as mentioned in the notification issued for the selection but he never approached the official respondents with his grievance. It was further stated that the merit of the writ petitioner was lower than that of selected candidates and he was rightly not short listed for further undergoing selection process for the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak in Panchayat Halqa Arnora Upper. The writ petitioner has continued in the department on account of court directions as he had been one of the 4 LPA Nos. 87/2025 and 89/2025 petitioners in each of the five writ petitions for the common cause and relief, which were subsequently dismissed. Once the learned Single Judge has held that the writ petitioner having participated in the selection process, cannot challenge the same, he cannot file a new petition again for the same relief. 6. Respondent No. 6 i.e. the appellant in LPA No. 89/2025 was not arrayed as respondent in the writ petition initially but pursuant to his application for arraying him as respondent in the writ petition, he was arrayed as respondent No. 6 in the writ petition vide order dated 10.03.2017. The respondent No. 6 also objected to the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner on the similar grounds as raised by the official respondents in their response. 7. The learned writ court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 01.05.2025, which is the subject matter in both these intra court appeals. The writ petitioner assailed the order of the writ court on the ground that the learned Single Judge has erred in not appreciating the distinct cause of action pleaded by the writ petitioner in the writ petition, which in fact has not been considered at all by the learned writ court particularly when he was granted liberty by the coordinate Bench vide order dated 03.09.2015 to file appropriate proceedings. It is also contended by the appellant-writ petitioner that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has clarified the position of the contractual/need based workers, who are not appointed against the substantive post by recognizing their right of seeking 5 LPA Nos. 87/2025 and 89/2025 regularization and continuance of their service owing to their long years of service. 8. The appellant-respondent No.6 in the writ petition, in LPA No. 89/2025 has assailed order dated 01.05.2025 to the limited extent qua the observations made in paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 of the judgment whereby the claim of respondent No. 6 for engagement as Gram Rozgar Sahayak was rejected and the official respondents were left free to re-advertise the position of Gram Rozgar Sahayak in question and to undertake fresh selection process thereof. 9. Mr. Karman Singh Johal, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the order passed by the learned writ court primarily on the ground that the learned writ court was not correct in dismissing the writ petition by applying the principle of resjudicata, particularly when the liberty was granted to the writ petitioner by the Division Bench vide its order dated 03.09.2015. 10. On the contrary, Ms. Rozina Afzal, learned counsel for appellant in LPA No. 89/2025 has argued that once the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner was dismissed, the learned writ court ought to have directed the official respondents to engage the appellant i.e. respondent No. 6 in the writ petition as Gram Rozgar Sahayak in Panchayat Upper Arnora but instead of doing so, the learned writ court has granted the official respondents liberty to re-advertise the position of Gram Rozgar Sahayak in question and to undertake fresh selection thereof. 6 LPA Nos. 87/2025 and 89/2025 11. Mr. S. S. Nanda, learned Sr. AAG representing official respondents has argued that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition and the writ court has rightly left the official respondents free to re- advertise the posts of Gram Rozgar Sahayak, as respondent No. 6 never sought any direction for directing the official respondents to engage the appellant as Gram Rozgar Sahayak for Panchayat Arnora Upper. 12. Heard and perused the record. 13. The writ petitioner had filed the writ petition for prohibiting the official respondents from making the selection amongst the four candidates from serial Nos. 2 to 5 in the short select list because the selected candidate did not join the duties due to his selection as Relationship Executive with the J&K Bank. 14. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the earlier writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner, has observed that the writ petitioner along with others was engaged temporarily and on need basis without following due process of selection and the official respondents were right in law to advertise the post so that eligible candidates get an opportunity to participate in the selection process. 15. We have not even an iota of doubt in our mind that the writ petitioner filed the writ petition only to perpetuate his continuance with the official respondents as Gram Rozgar Sahayak when he miserably failed during the selection process conducted by the official respondents. The writ petitioner had no locus to file the petition to prohibit the official respondents from making selection amongst the four candidates reflected in the short list. 7 LPA Nos. 87/2025 and 89/2025 16. A new ground was raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that the writ petitioner was entitled to be regularized because of his continuous working with the respondents. This ground was neither pleaded in the writ petition nor urged before the writ court, otherwise also the writ petitioner has continued to work with the official respondents pursuant to the court directions passed in one writ petition or the other preferred by the writ petitioner. The appellant has no case at all particularly in light of the findings returned by the learned Single Judge in the earlier writ petition filed by the writ petitioner that the engagement of the writ petitioner was temporary and was without due process of selection. 17. For all what has been said, analyzed and discussed hereinabove, we do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the appellant-writ petitioner, as such, the appeal preferred by the appellant in LPA 87/2025 is dismissed. 18. So far as the claim of appellant in LPA No. 89/2025 is concerned, the learned writ court has not directed the official respondents to re-advertise the position of Gram Rozgar Sahayak in question and to undertake a fresh selection thereof but has left the official respondents free to re-advertise and undertake fresh selection process in the event, if they intend to do so. The appellant also did not file any writ petition in respect of his grievance which could have enabled the official respondents to come up with their stance before the learned writ court and even in the objections filed by the respondent No.6 to the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner, no such relief was sought by the appellant. We have examined the judgment 8 LPA Nos. 87/2025 and 89/2025 passed by the learned writ court and we do not find any illegality in the same. 19. The appellant in LPA No. 87/2025 had no right whatsoever to file a writ petition afresh particularly when he had failed in the selection process and the appellant in LPA No. 89/2025 never filed any writ petition for asserting his claim. The learned writ court has not issued any writ of mandamus to the official respondents to undertake a fresh selection process for the position of Gram Rozgar Sahayak and rather the official respondents have been granted liberty to re-advertise the position of Gram Rozgar Sahayak in question, if they intend to do so. It is the prerogative of the official respondents to undertake fresh selection or not. 20. Viewed thus, both the appeals are found to be misconceived and the same are accordingly dismissed. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Jammu: 06.06.2025 Rakesh Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Rakesh Kumar 2025.06.12 08:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document