Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Of Jammu And Kashmir vs Khurshid Ahmed on 28 July, 2015
Bench: Madan B. Lokur, Amitava Roy
1
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.9 SECTION XVIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).19973/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/09/2014
in LPA No. 195/2013 passed by the High Court of J & K at Jammu)
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
KHURSHID AHMED AND ANR. Respondent(s)
(office report)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 19994/2015
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 19993/2015
(With Office Report)
Date : 28/07/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR
Mr. T.N. Razdan, Adv.
Ms. Shilpa Dutta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Amandeep Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
We find no merit in these petitions. Signature Not Verified It is submitted by learned counsel for the Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2015.07.28 17:12:28 IST Reason: petitioners that there is an impermissible direction to appoint the respondents.
We do not find any merit in this submission. 2 Paragraph 5 of the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court reads as follows:
“Another submission made by Mr. Basotra is that the learned Writ Court could have issued directions for consideration and not for appointment of the petitioner-respondents. On a close scrutiny of the direction issued by the learned Writ Court, we find that the learned Writ Court has not issued direction for appointment in respect of any of the writ petitioner – respondents. We find that Writ Court has been conscious while issuing direction that the petitioner-respondents be considered for appointment. Even this argument would not survive for consideration.” It is quite clear from the above that there is no direction given to appoint the respondents and the only direction is that the respondents should be considered for appointment in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the respondents should be considered for appointment in accordance with the views expressed by the Division Bench.
The special leave petitions are dismissed.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (JASWINDER KAUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER