0

Parties are bound by the decision which is not challenged and is in force as on date: High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh

Parties are bound by the decision which is not challenged and is in force as on date, therefore, there is no scope as far as quashment of appointment of respondent is concerned on whatsoever grounds unless the trial court decides the issue regarding the factum of residence of respondent which the petitioner believes to be obtained by fraud as upheld by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh through the learned bench led by Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey in the case of Waheeda Yaseen Khan v. State of JK and others (SWP no. 296/2018 [CM no. 854/2020])

The brief facts of the case are that post of ReT teacher was available in Upgraded School at ward No. 8 of Government Housing Colony, Ompora, Budgam which was notified by the official respondents. The petitioner and respondent no. 10 applied and participated in the section process that commenced subsequently and a panel was drawn in which both petitioner and respondent no. 10 figure at serial no. 3 and 2 respectively. Before appointment is made against the said post, a controversy arose as regards the residential status of the respondent no. 10 who stood at serial no. 2, and had a preferential right of appointment. This led to filing of a vociferous litigation which includes a civil suit filed by the petitioner wherein the selection of respondent no. 10 came to be challenged; Writ petition filed by the respondent no. 10 seeking direction in the name of respondent no. 2 therein to regularize his services as a General Line Teacher for having completed more than five years continuous services as ReT teacher; Writ Petition, filed by the petitioner seeking a direction in the name of respondents 3 and 4 therein to hold an enquiry with regard to Permanent Resident Certificate (PRC) and domicile of respondent no. 8 and to enquire the veracity of the documents submitted by the respondent no. 8 (respondent no. 10 herein) the petitioner had further prayed for a direction in the anme of Crime Branch, Kashmir to hold an enquiry with regard to providing of favorite documents to respondent no. 8 therein.

The Hon’ble High Court held, “Parties are bound by the decision which is not challenged and is in force as on date, therefore, there is no scope as far as quashment of appointment of respondent no. 10 is concerned on whatsoever grounds unless the trial court decides the issue regarding the factum of residence of respondent no. 10. On this finding alone, the challenge to appointment in the instant writ petition is not available. But the petitioner is at liberty to lay challenge to the appointment in the pending suit on available pleadings if the law so permits. In light of the above findings based on the judgment/ final order of this court rendered in a writ petition, the petitioner’s right, depending upon the decision of the Civil Court, is reserved to further relief in the said suit. Having regard to what has been stated hereinbefore, the writ petition is disposed of,”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Vandana Ragwani

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat