AVTAR KRISHAN PANDITA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts which are not disputed are, as under:

(2.) THE petitioner has now come to this Court. The present writ petition was preferred in the year 1992. Petitioners case is that he was appointed as Economic Investigator, as he was selected for this post and therefore, the observations made in the judgment delivered in writ petition No. 93/1994 cannot be made to operate to his prejudice. With a view to appreciate his claim that he was appointed as Economic Investigator, he places reliance on the stand taken by the respondent -State. For facility of reference, the stand taken by the State is reproduced below: -

(3.) THE petitioner submits that as appointment to the post of Economic Investigator was upheld, therefore, petitioner rightly came to be appointed as Economic Investigator, therefore, the judgment in questions should not operate against him.