Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on Thursday held that the court’s jurisdiction cannot be invoked again and again on the same set of grounds.

The court noted that it is always better that the recourse to the appropriate forum be allowed to be taken so that the parties may lead evidence on the disputed aspects of the facts and get the matter adjudicated upon.

The Bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul said, “The repeated filing of successive writ petitions virtually for the same cause of action in seeking regularization after rejection of their claim by the authorities, time and again, is more or less the abuse of the process of law and in these circumstances, the writ court may be justified in refusing to exercise discretionary powers.”

The Bench recorded that when repeatedly a consideration has been accorded in the matter of regularization by the authorities and every time the claim has been rejected on the factual aspects, the court cannot permit the person to keep invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court pleading for justice.

The Court aid this while hearing plea of Bashir Ahmad Dar who worked as casual labourer in Sericulture Department seeking regularisation of his services in terms of SRO 64, 1994.

At the same time he prayed for the quashing of the order dated 12th February 2018 by which his claim for regularization as aforesaid was rejected.

On the basis of the records available with the department, the court noted that the status of the petitioner-appellant is that of a casual labourer who is not entitled to benefit of any regularization under SRO 64 of 1994.

It further noted that the aforesaid SRO obliges regularization of only daily-rated workers/work charged employees provided inter alia he has completed seven years of continuous service as a daily rated worker/work charged employees.

It was recorded that the petitioner-appellant has failed to substantiate that he has seven years of continuous service at his back and, as such, does not fulfill the minimum eligibility criteria.

The Bench said, “Thus, in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find it to be a fit case for interfering with the decision of the learned Single Judge.”

The court said this appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

NUSRAT SIDIQ