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

2002 Supreme(J&K) 374

B.L.BHAT, T.S.DOABIA
Tasneem Kounsar – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Advocate For Appellant: Z.A. Shah
Advocate For Respondent: A.M. Magray
Advocate For Respondent: Z.A. Qureshi

1. Appointment of respondents 5, 6 and 7 in the writ petition who now figure as appellants in this Appeal was found to be not in accordance with the law as they had not submitted the certificates indicating that they are residents of Actual Line of Control. What is said by the learned Single Judge in this regard is being reproduced below:-

"Since the respondents 5 to 7 were not possessed of the requisite certificates, therefore, they were not entitled to seek selection against the posts reserved to be filled up by the candidates possessed of Actual Line of Act Control certificate. Thus this stipulation is uncalled for and unsustainable. The selection of respondents 5 to 7 against the posts reserved for IAC category, cannot be maintained as the respondents 5 to 7 were not eligible to seek selection against the said category for the aforesaid reasons. Therefore. the selection of said respondents deserves to be quashed, Consequent thereto appointments made pursuant to the selection also deserves to be quashed.

2. The above respondents, who as indicated above, now figure as appellants have preferred this Appeal under Clause 12 of Letters Patent

3. There can be no dispute with the proposi


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top