The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for public interest litigations to be bona fide and not for personal gain or oblique considerations.

1. The petition on hand represents a unique litigation of its kind, for, seldom one may come across a Public Interest Litigation (for short PIL), filed by a father (PIL mover for short), espousing the cause of none other than his real son, seeking indulgence of the Court to compel the State and its functionaries, to adhere to a particular qualification for selection of a lecturer, in the discipline of Pediatrics in SKIMS Srinagar, suppressing the fact that a similar controversy had already become subject of matter of writ petition (SWP 744 of 2008) titled Dr. Mohammad Himayon Gani v. State of J&K & others, petitioner wherein is his son. Facts so narrated are not only orally brought to our notice but are borne out by the record of the writ petition filed by Dr. Mohammad Himayon Gani (Dr. petitioner hereinafter), perhaps that is why, the PIL mover when asked, whether he was aware of any other sub judice writ petition involving similar cause, suddenly and unexpectedly shouted:

"My personal cases have been decided against me by Honble Justice Kakru and he has also declined to hear some of my cases, therefore he should not hear my petition

2. A glance at statement of the petitioner discerns two objections, one that Kakru-J has decided PIL movers cases against him, therefore, should not hear this PIL, the other, refusal to hear his cases. Notwithstanding the fact that these objections were within the knowledge of the petitioner on 10-2-2009 but were not raised. Be that as it may, since objections are raised, these have to be addressed to and first and foremost, we would like to deal with the latter one. Objection necessitates unfolding of the narrative which forms basis of the direction for listing of the case before the other bench. The petitioner in the capacity of an employee of a College, faced disciplinary proceedings, resulting in unfavourable action against him which he questioned in this Court through several petitions, filed in quick succession against the authorities of the College. A few of his matters were listed on 11.8.2005 before Kakru J which received consideration one by one by following order:

"CMP 2767/01 AbduI Gani Bhat Vs. Islamia College & Ors. By medium of this application, petitioner seeks deletion of respondents 1, 2, 5, 6 & 7 as also action against respondent No.2 for allegedly having filed a false statement of facts on affidavit. In so far as prayer for deletion of respondents aforementioned goes, that stands already allowed and to appreciate the second prayer, judgment passed in contempt 435/01 assumes significance. Its perusal reveals that pleadings of the parties in the contempt petition, out of which this CMP arises, were duly appreciated by the court and the matter was adjudicated upon on the basis of rival contentions of the parties which included the statement of facts. That being so, any further observation about the statement of facts, may amount to rewriting of the judgment which is not possible in the given facts and circumstances of the case, resultantly the application fails and is dismissed.

CMP 1023/03:

In this application, petitioner has registered grouse against the Registrar Judicial. Suffice it to say that the allegations do not call for any examination on the judicial side. As regards prayer for interpretation of sections 195/476 Cr.P.C., the provisions admit no ambiguity and no clarification is called for in the facts and circumstances detailed in the application. Dismissed.

CMP 2772/02:

By medium of this CMP, release of pay/pension/gratuity with interest is sought with further prayer to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents. Dealing with the contention, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the orders passed by the court from time to time which has the effect of release of Rs. 8,34,999.00 in favour of the petitioner. That being so, no further relief is possible.

CMP is dismissed.

CMP 2674/01 :

When this application was taken up for consideratio