STATE OF J&K Vs. MOHAMMAD YOUSUF RATHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against judgment dated 16.09.2005 rendered by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 1312/2000. The writ petitioner-respondent Dr. M. Y. Rather produced on record a so called order dated 28.09.1998. The order which incorporates names of various doctors interpolated the name of the writ petitioner-respondent by replacing Dr. M. Y. Bhat shown at serial no. 1. The learned Single Judge has been effectively mislead because the fabricated order constituted the basis of the judgment. It is appropriate to mention that vide order dated 28.09.1998 the services of the writ petitioner- respondent were regularised on the post of Lecturer (Medicine). The operative portion of the impugned judgment reads thus:-

(2.) We heard the matter in detail yesterday and asked the learned Senior Additional Advocate General to produce the original record. From the original record, it is revealed that order dated 28.9.1998 (at Page 76) was passed, inter alia, in respect of one Dr. M. Y. Bhat and not in respect of Mr. M. Y. Rather, writ petitioner-respondent. The so called order (Annexure-K) which was produced before the Writ Court is fabricated piece of evidence which the Writ petitioner-re spondent has placed on record. Somehow, the document was not verified by the respondent-State and its contents were also inadvertently admitted. However, the Cabinet decision at Page Nos. 65 to 73, show that it was Mr. M. Y. Bhat and not the writ petitioner-respondent (M. Y. Rather) whose services were regularized. It was on the basis of aforesaid Cabinet decision that the order of regularization dated 28.09.1998 was passed where the name of Dr. M. Y. Bhat figured at serial No.1.

(3.) Mr. Qayoom appearing for the writ petitioner-respondent, at the outset, states that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition because the whole relief has been claimed on the basis of a document which we find is a fabricated piece of evidence. He has pleaded for a lenient view because of various adverse conditions which prevailed in the Valley. The writ petitioner-respondent has lived in and served the State during militancy and has also lost 20 years. Consequently he would not earn any pension.