Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Munir Hussain Shah And Ors. vs State Of J&K; And Others. on 13 November, 2017

Author: Sanjeev Kumar

Bench: Sanjeev Kumar

            HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                                           AT JAMMU
SWP No.2695/2017
                                                               Date of order: 13 .11.2017.
Munir Hussain Shah and ors.           v.             State of J&K and others.
Coram:
        Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge
Appearing counsel:
For the Petitioner(s)         : None.
For the Respondent(s)         : Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA.

None for the petitioners.

I have considered the petition in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioners. In this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for direction to the respondents to consider their representation for appointment/absorption as Class-IV employees in Education Department pending before the respondents since November, 2011 in light of the judgment of Division Bench dated 30.07.2009 passed in LPA(SW) No.49/2008 (State of J&K and others. v. Adil Akhter Shah and others). Petition on the face of it is not maintainable for the two reasons:- i) It is barred by delay and laches and (ii) no direction beyond the directions issued by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 30.07.2009 can be issued. For facility of reference operative portion of judgment dated 30.09.209 is reproduced hereunder:-

"In the circumstances, for all practical purposes, it must be deemed that by way of a policy decision, the State Government created 417 more posts and in those posts, by the order dated 4.4.2003 those 417 persons, who were permitted to work on temporary basis by the order dated 11.4.2002, were regularized. In consequence thereof, it must be deemed that there are still 417 posts available. The number of writ petitions is less than 417. Accordingly, all of them can be accommodated. There will, therefore, be no occasion to take r course to upsetting the orders of the Government dated 11.4.2002 and 4.4.2003.

In the circumstances, the exercise to be undertaken in terms of the judgment and order under appeal be completed within a period of six months from today and to that extent the judgment and order under appeal is modified with clarifications."

In view of the aforesaid direction contained in the judgment, it is abundantly clear that the consideration was restricted only to the petitioners, who were either before the Division bench as respondents or the persons, whose writ petitions were pending before the Court on or before the date of passing of the judgment. The persons, who have filed writ petition subsequent to the judgment of the Division Bench, are not entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid judgment.

That being the position, the writ petition is highly misconceived and is, therefore, dismissed.

(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Jammu 13.11.2017 Vinod.