SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 953

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Sheikh Javeed Ahmad & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of J&K & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4426-4427 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 24938-24939 of 2018)
Decided On : 27-03-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, Sr. Adv. Mr. A.M.Magrey, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitish Gupta, Adv. Mr. Farman Ali, Adv. Ms. Nikita Jaitely, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Arora, Adv. Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Kawoosa, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR

Public Interest Litigation can challenge appointments violating statutory regulations, but courts must consider factual impossibilities regarding qualification requirements.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir - Article 103 - Public Interest Litigation - Appointment of Assistant Professors in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences challenged as illegal due to non-fulfillment of prescribed qualifications - High Court set aside appointments citing ineligibility. (Paras 1-4)

(B) Maintainability of Public Interest Litigation in service matters - High Court confirms exceptions for appointments violating statutory rules, allowing judicial review - Court emphasizes the law does not mandate actions that are impossible. (Paras 4.1-4.3)

Facts of the case:
Appellants were appointed as Assistant Professors in 2010 after undergoing short-term training, though they were required to hold specific diplomas which were unavailable. High Court subsequently ruled their appointments invalid citing educational qualifications issues raised in PIL by third parties.

Findings of Court:
Supreme Court finds the High Court erred by disregarding SKIMS' role in organizing training and the impossibility of obtaining qualifications, leading to improper conclusion on the matter.

Issues: Whether the appointment of the appellants violated rules due to lack of qualifications and the maintainability of PIL in service matters.

Ratio Decidendi: Supreme Court clarifies that the responsibility of providing necessary training lay with SKIMS, affirming the appellants’ qualifications cannot be deemed impossible due to lack of efforts by the institution, thus reinstating appointments.

Result: Appeals allowed; appointments reinstated with continuity in service.

Table of Content
1. factual background of appellants' appointments. (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding the validity of the appointments. (Para 4 , 6)
3. court's analysis of qualifications and decisions. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. mistakes in the high court's decision. (Para 13)
5. court's order for reinstatement of appellants. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)

ORDER :

Leave Granted.

2. These appeals question the correctness of a judgment and order dated 11th July 2014 passed in OWP (PIL) No.861 of 2010 and the order dated 30th March 2018 in RPIL No.43 of 2014 as well as the order dated 30th March, 2018 in RPPIL No.43/2014, by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar, whereby appointments as Assistant Professors, granted to the appellants herein, namely, Dr. Sheikh Javeed Ahmad & Dr. Abdul Hamid Rather, were set aside as being incompatible with the rules and regulations, and the reviews sought thereagainst being dismissed as well.

At the outset, we note an order of this Court passed on 3rd November 2023-

“When the matters are called on for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before us that out of the three petitioners of the Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) out of which the present proceeding arises, two are not traceable and one of the three persons in whose names that action has been brought has filed an affidavit before the High Court stating therein that he had not filed the said petition.

The State shall file a report as regards whereabouts of the three petitioners who had brought the PIL. The State shall also apprise this Court about the position of vacancy in the Sher-I- Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Srinagar…”

(Emphasis supplied)

On 12th December 2023, it was informed that the Director General, Crime Investigation Department1[Hereafter, CID] was inquiring into the identities of the PIL petitioners. Vide affidavit dated 12th February 2024 filed by the Secretary to the Government of Jammu Kashmir, enclosed the report of the CID, which is extracted below for reference :

i. The petitioner namely Mohd Syed Shah S/O Mohd Sadiq Shah figuring at S.No.01 in the ibid reference found to be resident of Konan, Bandipora. He is approximately 70 years of age. He was running a medical shop at Chuntimullah, Bandipora, currently his two sons are running a medical shop in main market Bandipora. The purported petitioner Mohammad Syed Shah has denied to have filed the PIL before the Hon’ble Court. Reportedly 02 years back, he had given an undertaking to SKIMS authorities wherein he denied filing of any such PIL before the Hon’ble Court. The contact number of Mohammad Syed Shah is 9596325628.

ii. The petitioner namely Mohammad Ishaq Khanday S/O Abdul Khaliq Khanday R/O Batpora, Sopore figuring at S.No.02 in the ibid reference is currently residing at Hamza Colony Bemina Srinagar since 1986 and retired as Research Assistant from Agriculture Department in 2020. His phone number is 7889505126. He admitted the filing of the PIL.

iii. The whereabouts in respect of the petitioner namely Mohammad Amin Sheikh S/O Ghulam Ahmad Sheikh R/O Bohari, Sopore figuring at S.No.3 in the above quoted reference could not be traced out due to incomplete address.

3. The field report further revealed that the petition was reportedly filed by one Dr. Ali Mohammad Buhroo S/O Ghulam Mohammad Buhroo R/O Gundiqasier, Bandipora, the then HOD Physics SKIMS Srinagar (Now retired) 10years ago before the Hon’ble High Court of J & K on behalf of the petitioners including Mohammad Syed Shah with whom the purported petitioner Mohammad Syed Shah was working as an attendant.”

(Emphasis supplied)

We may here itself record our surprise that the High Court, after being in receipt of such an affidavit of the alleged petitioner, did not take steps to look into its order and the propriety thereof. Be that as it may, we now proceed to the facts and merits of the matters before us.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the factual backdrop of these appeals is as under :

3.1 The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top