HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. CDLSW No. 81 OF 2010 AND LPASW No. 123 OF 2010 Satpaul Shamotra & Ors. Petitioners State & Ors Respondent !Mr. I.H.Bhat, Advocate ^NEMO Honble Mr. Justice J.P.Singh, Judge. Honble Mr. Justice Hasnain Massodi, Judge. Date: 24.11.2010 :J U D G M E N T :
The Contractors engaged by the Government Medical
College, Jammu had employed the appellants for doing
annual service, maintenance/running of Steam Boiler, Hot
Water Generator, Water Softening Plant, Electric Sub-
Station Cum Diesel Generator Sets, CSSD, Laundry and
Kitchen etc.
Their claim to regularization in Government Service
was rejected by the Principal, Government Medical College,
Jammu vide Office Order No. 175/AHJ of 2000 dated
12.09.2000 while considering it, in compliance to the
directions issued in their earlier Writ Petition SWP No.
1820/99, on the ground that being not on the
establishment of the Executive Engineer, Mechanical
Hospital and Central Heating Division, Jammu, they were
not entitled to entry or regularization in the Government
Service.
They filed another Writ Petition questioning the
rejection of their case, besides seeking issuance of
directions to the State-respondents to take them in
Government Service, regularizing their past service.
2
Finding the plea untenable, their Writ Petition was
dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide
Order dated 20.03.2009, however, with a direction to the
State-respondents to undertake the Selection process for
filling up available posts created for the jobs, which the
appellants had been doing on behalf of the Contractors
engaged by the State Government, considering the
appellants too therefor, if found otherwise eligible.
Aggrieved by the judgment, they have filed this
Letters Patent Appeal along with CDLSW No. 81/2010
seeking condonation of 502 days delay in filing the Appeal.
According to the appellants, after getting information
regarding disposal of their Writ Petition, they delivered a
Certified copy of the judgment along with the relevant
records to their Counsel, Suresh Kumar, Advocate, without
any loss of time, instructing him to file Appeal against the
judgment. They were under a bonafide impression that the
Appeal stood so filed, which they, however, later come to
know had not been so filed by their Advocate because of
his domestic problems. Getting the brief back, the Appeal
was filed through the appellants new Counsel.
We have heard appellants learned counsel on the
merits of the Appeal also to examine as to whether a case
for Condonation of delay was made out.
The view taken by the learned Single Judge declining
appellants entry into Government Service on the basis of
their past Service with the Contractor engaged by the
Government, is unexceptionable, in that, being the
employees of the Contractor who had been allotted work by
the Government, the appellants do not become entitled to,
either as of right or on preference, to entry into
Government Service, which in terms of the rules in force, is
permissible only by competition in selection.
3
That apart, the appellants have neither produced the
Affidavit of their Advocate-Suresh Kumar nor any other
material to substantiate the plea of negligence of their
counsel in not filing the Appeal.
Even otherwise, after having handed over the brief to
their Counsel, within the time prescribed for filing Appeal,
no sufficient and plausible reason has been assigned by
the appellants justifying huge delay of more than 500 days
in not finding out as to whether or not the Appeal had been
filed by their Advocate. The Certified copy of the judgment
of the learned Single Judge, which has been annexed, with
the Memo of Appeal, indicates it to be a fresh copy of the
judgment obtained on 27.09.2010, which fact too
demonstrates that the plea projected by the appellants in
the application that they had obtained the Certified copy of
the judgment immediately after it was announced and
handed over to their Advocate to file the Appeal, which was
later given back to them, for engaging a new Counsel, is a
plea without substance, which appears to have been
coined only with a view to facilitate the filing of the Appeal,
seeking Condonation of delay on flimsy grounds.
After having known about the judgment delivered by
the Writ Court, the appellants were required to
demonstrate due diligence in taking resort to the remedies
available to them under law. There inaction in ensuring
filing of the Appeal within the prescribed period of
limitation and approaching the Court after a period of
about 1= years, cannot thus be justified on the cause
projected.
Accordingly, finding that the view taken by the
learned Single Judge, does not suffer from any error of law
warranting hearing of the Appeal on merits, we find that no
4
sufficient cause has been made out by the appellants for
Condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.
CDLSW No. 81/2010 is, therefore, dismissed along
with LPA(SW) No. 123/2010.
(Hasnain Massodi) (J.P.Singh)
Judge Judge
Jammu:
24.11.2010
Pawan Chopra
