Court : Jammu and Kashmir
(This judgment delivered at Srinagar Bench) Oral: 1. Sometimes errors of trivial nature give rise to hectic litigative process. An error as has crept in Annexure to the advertisement notice inviting applications has given rise to the instant litigation. 2. Vide advertisement notice No.06 of 2008 dated 31st May, 2008, issued by Service Selection Board LAHDC Kargil, applications have been invited from the eligible candidates of District Kargil for the District Cadre Posts as were available in various Departments of Kargil District. The total number of the posts of Orderlies available in various departments has been shown as 250 with the following break up. OM = 143, RBA = 50, SC = 20 ST = 25, ALC = 05, HC = 07. 3. The qualification prescribed is minimum Matric and maximum 10+2. Petitioners have also participated in the process of selection, finally were appointed as Safaiwalas in the Health Department. After accepting the order of appointment, they filed a writ petition bearing SWP No.20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Oral: Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J. 1. The appellant owner of a shop situated at City Chowk, a prime location in Jammu, mortgaged the same in favour of the respondent. Appellant instituted a suit for redemption of mortgaged property, which landed in the court of Munsiff (Sub Registrar), Jammu. On 02.12.1983, the appellant and respondent entered into a compromise. The terms and conditions of the compromise are taken note of: (a) The defendant shall deliver the possession of the suit shop to the plaintiff on 1-1-1989 as the property stands redeemed. (b) The defendant shall pay compensation for use and occupation of the suit shop at such rate as may be fixed by the plaintiff until the possession of the shop is so delivered to the plaintiff. (c) The parties shall bear their own costs. 2. In the memo of compromise, it was inter alia agreed and decided between appellant and the respondent that the respondent/defendant shall deliver the possession of suit shop to the plaintiff on 1-1-1989 as the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
1. The challenge in this petition is to Order No.FC(A) 59 of 2001 dated 14.03.2001 issued by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) - respondent No.2 herein, to the extent it rejects the claim of petitioner for his promotion to the post of Girdawar with effect from 27.07.1991. 2. The facts-in-brief, as gathered from the writ record, are that the petitioner herein was appointed as a Patwari on 30.08.1974. It is averred that in the year 1989 respondents 4 and 5 recommended the petitioner for the award of Gold Medal on the occasion of ensuing Independence Day for his extra ordinary hard work in accomplishing the job of Settlement Operation in Tehsil Ramban. Thereafter, on the recommendations of the competent authority, he was given the charge of the post of Girdawar, Batote vide Order No.254-57/DLR/Acctt dated 22.07.1991 issued by the Director Land Records, Jammu - respondent No.5 herein. It is averred that this action of respondent No.5 was also later on approved by the Financial Commissio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J. 1. When LPA No. 148/2013 came up for consideration before the Letters Patent Bench of this Court on 20th March, 2014, the Court directed the Registrar Judicial to make reference before the Chief Justice for constitution of Full Bench, as the Letters Patent Bench noticed that there is conflict between the judgments rendered in LPA No. 59/2012 decided on 13.09.2012 and LPA No. 135/2012 decided on 18.10.2012. 2. The Registrar Judicial, in compliance of the aforesaid Court order, made reference before Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Hon'ble the Chief Justice was pleased to constitute Full Bench. It is for this reason the reference is listed before this Full Bench. 3. To appreciate the conflict in the decisions rendered in the aforesaid two LPAs, brief narration of the facts would require to be given. 4. One Mubeena Hassan filed SWP No. 1508/2011, which was decided by the learned Writ Court vide its judgment dated July 18, 2013. The writ petitioner-Mubeena Hassan respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
01. This batch of writ petitions is taken up together for final disposal as the issues involved are identical in all the writ petitions. 02. Before dealing with the pleadings and arguments of learned counsel on either side, it is deemed appropriate to give brief narration of the facts of the cases. 03. Advertisement Notification No. 01/2002 dated 26th April, 2002 was issued by the respondent- Selection Board, whereunder 52 posts of Naib Tehsildars were advertised. The eligibility qualification mentioned in the Advertisement Notification was graduation. 04. The selection process could not be concluded. In the meanwhile, one more Advertisement Notification No. 09/2005 dated 14th December, 2005 was issued, where under 39 posts of Naib Tehsildars were advertised. The process of selection initiated in pursuance to the Advertisement Notification No. 09/2005 dated 14th December, 2005 also remained inconclusive and in the meanwhile, respondent-Selection Board issued Advertisement Notification ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
1. These CIMAs have arisen out of a common judgment and award, involving common questions of law and facts; therefore, same were considered and heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These three appeals are directed against the awards passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu in three different claim petitions (File Nos. 146/ claim, 290/claim and 247/claim) by a common judgment dated 31-10-2008, saddling the Union of India-appellant herein to pay an amount of Rs. 6,14,940/- in case titled as Sabir Ali v. Union of India and others; Rs. 22,000/- in case titled as Saleem Ali v. Union of India and others Rs. 7,35,000/-; in case titled as Mohd. Sadiq v. Union of India, with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the claim petitions till final payments are made (for short, impugned award). Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-Union of India has come up with these appeals. 3. The facts, as borne out from the record of these CIMAs, are that on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, CJ. 1. This application is filed seeking to condone the delay of 648 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal against the order made in SWP No.1033/2011 dated 12.07.2013. In the application filed seeking to condone the delay it is stated that the judgment was rendered by this Court on 12.07.2013 and after receiving the order Secretary to Govt. Health and Medical Education Department requested the administrative department on 05.09.2013 for filing appeal. However, the case remained under process in the administrative department for getting approval of sanction from the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs till 16.12.2014 i.e., for over fifteen months. The administrative department on 16.12.2014 only directed the Principal Government Medical College, Jammu to contact the Deputy Advocate General along with record for drafting and filing of the appeal. The Principal, Govt. Medical College, Jammu on 29.12.2014 requested the Deputy Advocate General for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
(This Judgment delivered at Srinagar Bench) 1. For filling up various tenure posts of Registrars in Government Dental College and Hospital, Shireen Bagh Srinagar, applications were invited. Petitioner and respondent No.3 applied as against one post of Registrar (Prosthodontics). After participation in the process, the Selection Committee in the award sheet recorded as under: Since the PG degree of both the candidates is yet subject to the approval of DCI/GOR and as such the committee was not in a position to award the marks for such qualification, hence the committee recommends re-advertising the said post along with other vacancies. 2) In the light of aforesaid conclusion of the Committee, the tenure post of Registrar/Tutor Prosthodontics was re-advertised on 01.04.2015. Again only two candidates i.e. petitioner and respondent No.3 competed. The Selection Committee prepared the merit list wherein petitioner is shown to have secured 55 marks whereas respondent No.3 is shown to have se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
(This Judgment Delivered at Srinagar Bench) 1) Initially vide advertisement notice dated 29.12.2012, applications were invited for filling up 49 posts of Prosecuting Officers (for short Pos). Later on vide addendum dated 13.08.2013 to the said advertisement notice, the number of posts to be filled up was notified as 98 with following break-up OMRBASTSCALCSocial CasteTotal56191008030398 2) The issues raised in SWP No.1344/2015 and in the connected petitions are identical, therefore, determination of issues in SWP No.1344/2015 will govern other petitions as well. 3) The process of selection as was set in motion is divided into four stages, Viz.: i) physical test; ii) written test of the eligible candidates as per syllabus; iii) interview of the candidates on making the grade in the written test; and iv) final selection. 4) The second stage i.e. written examination process is mainly under challenge on the count that: 1. Most of the questions as appeared in the question paper were out of s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
B.S. Walia, J. 1. Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against judgement dated 13.07.2001 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in SWP No. 439/1999 whereby the order passed by the appellant dismissing the respondent from service was set aside and the respondent reinstated while leaving the appellant free to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 2. We have heard Mr. Varinder Kumar, Deputy Commandant, Border Security Force, who has assailed the judgement passed by the Ld. Single Judge inter alia on the ground that the respondent had failed to avail of an efficacious alternative remedy under Rule 28 of The Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) therefore was not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that there was no procedural irregularity in the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the respondent and the finding with regard to non-compliance with Rule 20 to 22 was wholly misplaced as the issuance of show cause notice...
Tag this Judgment!