LPA No.115/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 18.07.2025 Pronounced on: 29.08.2025 LPA No.115/2022 MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN & Ors. ... APPELLANT(S) Through: - Mr. Shafqat Nazir, Advocate, with Ms. Hina Baqal, Advocate. Vs. GOVERNMENT OF J&K AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Mr. Jahangir Ahmad Dar, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT Sanjay Dhar ‘J’: 1) The appellants have challenged judgment dated 12.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition bearing WP(C) No.1259/2021 filed by them has been dismissed. 2) It appears that the appellants/writ petitioners (hereinafter for short “the writ petitioners”) filed a writ petition (WP(C) No.1259/2021) contending therein that in terms of advertisement notification dated 27.07.2006, applications were invited for engagement as casual labourers in the respondent department. It was pleaded that the writ petitioners, being trained in Plumber Trade and having been in possession of the requisite certificates, responded to the said notification. However, some complaints with LPA No.115/2022 regard to authenticity of ITI Plumber Trade certificates poured in and the engagement of the writ petitioners was kept in abeyance till enquiry/investigation in the matter. It was further submitted that FIR No.31/2007 for offences under Section 420, 468, 471 RPC was registered and the investigation was conducted. It was the further case of the writ petitioners that the certificates of only nine candidates were found to be fake against whom chargesheet was filed and the other certificates including the certificates of the writ petitioners were handed over by the Crime Branch to the Executive Engineer, PHE Division, Baramulla. It was contended by the writ petitioners that despite their certificates having been declared genuine by the Crime Branch, their services were not utilized by the respondent department. 3) It seems that a series of writ petitions came to be filed by the writ petitioners and similarly situated persons before the Writ Court in which various orders came to be passed from time to time directing the respondents to consider the claims of the writ petitioners as well as other similarly situated persons. 4) It was submitted that 180 candidates belonging to Sub Division, Uri, who had filed a writ petition bearing SWP No.1312/2014, had obtained an order from the Writ Court directing the respondents to consider their representation and pursuant to the order of this Court, these 180 casual labourers of Hydraulic Division, Uri, were engaged whereas the writ petitioners, who are similarly situated with these casual labourers, have not been given LPA No.115/2022 the similar benefit. It was contended that the writ petitioners, who belong to Hydraulic Division, Baramulla, have not been engaged but the services of 180 candidates belonging to Hydraulic Division, Uri, have been utilized on the basis of the orders passed by the Writ Court. 5) It was submitted that the claim of the writ petitioners was initially rejected by the respondents by virtue of Government Order No.351-PW (Hyd) of 2018 dated 17.10.2018 and thereafter, pursuant to the directions of this Court, Government Order No.22- JK (JSD) of 2021 dated 25.01.2021, that was impugned in the writ petition (WP(C) No.1259/2021) filed by the writ petitioners, came to be passed, whereby the claim of the writ petitioners was again rejected. 6) Before the Writ Court, the respondents took a stand that the advertisement notification for engagement of ITI trained plumbers as casual labourers in Uri and Baramulla divisions clearly provided that the engagements shall be made on need basis. It has been submitted that by the time claim of the writ petitioners came up for consideration, the Hydraulic Division, Baramulla, did not have any requirement of casual labourers as the local casual labourers already engaged by the said Division were sufficient to take care of its needs. It was also contended by the respondents that vide Government Order No.43-F of 2015 dated 17.03.2015, the power to engage casual labourers conferred under Government Order No.239-F of 2005 dated 29.11.2005 was withdrawn by the LPA No.115/2022 Government and, thus, even if there would have been any need for utilizing services of the writ petitioners, the respondents were not in a position to issue any engagement order in their favour. 7) The learned Writ Court, after hearing the parties, found merit in the stand of the respondents and, accordingly, it refused to interfere in the impugned order issued by the respondents whereby claim of the writ petitioners was rejected. 8) The writ petitioners have challenged the impugned judgment passed by the learned Writ Court on the grounds that they are similarly situated with 180 candidates belonging to Hydraulic Division, Uri, and once the respondents utilised services of these 180 candidates, there was no reason for them to deny similar relief to the writ petitioners. It has been further contended that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Writ Court is perverse, inasmuch as Government Order No.43-F of 2015 dated 17.03.2015 did not have any bearing upon the cases of the writ petitioners as it was not a case of fresh engagement but it was a case of utilization of services of the writ petitioners who had already been engaged in the year 2006-07 itself. It has been further contended that the respondents retained the original ITI certificates of the writ petitioners for more than 14 years and passed the consideration orders only on 17.10.2018 and 25.01.2021, thereby delaying decision in the matter in order to defeat the rights of the writ petitioners. It has also been contended that the officers of the respondent department have, vide their several communications, LPA No.115/2022 admitted that they require the services of casual labourers but in spite of this, they failed to uitilize services of the writ petitioners. 9) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order passed by the learned Writ Court, the grounds of appeal and record of the Writ Court. 10) The claim of the writ petitioners with regard to their entitlement to utilization of their services is based upon their engagement as casual labourers pursuant to advertisement notice issued by the respondent department on 27.07.2006. If we have a look at the said advertisement notice, it provides for invitation of applications for engagement as seasonal/casual labourers purely on need basis. It is mentioned in the advertisement notice that the engagement shall be purely on the basis of actual need of the Department and for a particular time of the year. So, even if it is assumed that the writ petitioners were engaged as casual labourers pursuant to the said advertisement notice dated 27.07.2006, the same would not confer any right upon them or caste an obligation upon the respondents to utilize their services. It is only if the respondent department would be in need of their services that it is obliged to engage only such number of persons amongst the candidates who were shortlisted pursuant to advertisement notice dated 27.07.2006, as would be necessary for the said department to meet its needs. 11) In the instant case, unfortunately for the writ petitioners, the engagement process of casual labourers pursuant to advertisement LPA No.115/2022 notice dated 27.07.2006 landed into trouble and it led to registration of a criminal case resulting in delay in engagement of the writ petitioners. This ultimately gave rise to litigation between the parties. While services of some of the casual labourers were utilized by Hydraulic Division, Uri, the services of the writ petitioners, who were to be engaged by Hydraulic Division, Baramulla, were not utilized. The writ petitioners cannot claim parity with the candidates belonging to Hydraulic Division, Uri, because each Division has its own requirements. Merely because services of some candidates were utilized by Hydraulic Division, Uri, cannot form a ground for compelling Hydraulic Division, Baramulla, to utilize services of the writ petitioners even if they do not have need to do so. 12) The contention of the writ petitioners that it was not a case of fresh engagement but it was a case where their engagement was kept in abeyance and, therefore, Government Order No.43-F of 2015 dated 17.03.2015 will have no bearing upon their case, is also flawed. This is so because the respondents, pursuant to advertisement notice dated 27.07.2006, had only prepared a panel of casual labourers whose services were to be utilized as per the requirement of a particular division. It is not that all the candidates in the panel had acquired a vested right to get themselves engaged as casual labourers irrespective of the fact whether or not there was any need of their services in the respondent department. It was open to the respondent department to operate the panel partially as per their requirement. By the time cases of the writ petitioners LPA No.115/2022 for their engagement as casual labourers for utilizing their services came up for consideration, the power to engage casual labourers given to the respondents in terms of Government Order No.239-F of 2005 dated 29.11.2005 had been withdrawn by the Government in terms of Government Order dated 17.03.2015 (supra). Therefore, even if the respondent department would have been in need of services of the casual labourers, it was not competent to engage the casual labourers in the face of aforesaid Government Order dated 17.03.2015(supra). 13) Learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners has submitted that this Court vide order dated 08.08.2024 had directed the respondents to file an affidavit indicating therein the number of skilled casual labourers working presently in the department as well as the dates of their engagement as also the need, if any, for engagement of skilled casual labourers right now. It has been submitted that the respondents have not complied with the said order. 14) In the above context, it is to be noted that the respondents have filed an affidavit before this Court in which it has been submitted that presently 1654 skilled casual labourers stand engaged in the department and the said engagements have been made strictly in terms of Government Order No.239-F of 2005 dated 29.11.2005. It has been further submitted that beyond the aforesaid sanctioned engagements, the respondent department has neither initiated nor contemplated any further engagement of casual labourers, skilled or otherwise. It has also been submitted LPA No.115/2022 that fresh engagement or re-engagement of labourers in the department in not permissible in view of Government Order dated 17.03.2015 (supra). 15) Thus, in the affidavit the respondents have clearly indicated that after coming into force of Government Order dated 17.03.2015(supra), no process for fresh engagement of casual labourers, skilled or otherwise, has been undertaken by the respondent department. In the face of this stand of the respondents, the contention of the writ petitioners that even after issuance of impugned consideration order, the respondents have been making fresh engagements of skilled casual labourers, is not based upon any material. 16) In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, we do not find that there is any illegality, much less perversity, in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Writ Court that would warrant interference by this Court. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. (Sanjay Dhar) (Vinod Chatterji Koul) Judge Judge Srinagar, 29.08.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the JUDGMENT is reportable: YES/NO