TASHI RABSTAN
Irfan Ahmad Bhat – Appellant
Versus
SKUAST – Respondent
Judgment
1. At the very outset, let it be mentioned that on account of dissenting and divergent views expressed by two learned Judges of this Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Hon’ble Mr Justice Rashid Ali Dar, in an Appeal, diarised and registered as LPASW no.118/2018, Hon’ble the Chief Justice, has referred this Appeal, in exercise of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 36 of the J&K High Court Rules, 1999, and that is how, this Single Bench is constituted to call upon to decide, determine and adjudicate upon the controversy in hand. Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjeev Kumar has proposed to allow the Appeal and set-aside learned Writ Court judgement dated 10thAugust 2018, whereas Hon’ble Mr Justice Rashid Ali Dar (now retired) proposed to dismiss the Appeal of appellants/writ petitioners.
2. The Hon’ble Judges have come up with three questions for determination by the Third Judge, to be designated for the purpose by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, which are:
Dilip Kumar Ghosh and others v. Chairman and others
Annamalai University v. Secy to Government, Inf. & Tourism Department and others
Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj and others
State of Tamil Nadu and another v. Adhiyhaman Education & Research Institute and others
Annamalai University v. Secy. to Govt. Infn. & Tourism Department & others
Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj and others
PGF Ltd v. Union of India (2015) 13 SCC 50. (Para 10.25) – Referred.
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.