Backdrop Appointee

examining the records pertaining to the case.

Precisely, the government said that Arif managed his engagement and continuance in connivance with then Executive Officer who also facilitated drawal of Arif’s salary and because of the same, the Government decided to retire the then Executive Officer MC Baramulla prematurely. It is also averred that Arif’s engagement was initially on consolidated wages and he continued to work on an extension basis. @The petitioner (Arif) was, in fact, a backdoor appointee and he was engaged just on the recommendation of then Minister, which has resulted into denial of opportunity of participation in selection process for engagement to the other eligible candidates,@ the government said, adding, “Once the officer who engaged the petitioner (Arif) was not having competence to engage (him), the petitioner (Arif) cannot claim any right to continue at the post.

After hearing both the sides, a bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal upheld the government decision to disengage Arif.

“There is substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents (government) that the engagement of the petitioner (Arif) even on consolidated basis has resulted into denial of opportunity of participation in the selection process to other eligible candidates,” the court said, adding, “There is not even an iota of doubt that the petitioner (Arif) has been engaged just on the recommendations of then Minister without any selection process.”

Otherwise also, the court said, it is settled law that once the initial engagement of a candidate is not by the competent authority, his services cannot be regularized .

“Once this Court has come to the