Sunil Hali
Rajni Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
2. The petitioner and respondent no.4 are locked in a litigative process for more than one and a half decade. One trying to unsettle the position of the other. In order to understand the controversy involved in this petition, certain facts are required to be noted:-
3. Petitioner came to be appointed as a Refractionist in Government Medical College Jammu on adhoc basis in the year 1989. Said appointment was regularized with effect from 11.09.1989. Respondent no.4 was appointed as Ophthalmic Assistant in the year 1988 in the Health Department. The appointment of the petitioner was challenged by respondent no.4 in SWP no. 441/1990 on the ground that she was not eligible to be appointed as a Refractionist. It seems that respondent no.4 withdrew the said writ petition on the assurance of the State that he would be considered for appointment in the Medical Education Department. The services of respondent no.4 came to be transferred from the Health Department to
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.