STATE OF J&K Vs. RAJ NATH KOUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Officers is in appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.02.2000 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court while allowing SWP No. 740 of 1992. The writ petitioner-respondent, Raj Nath Koul had made a simple claim that he would be entitled to grant of similar relief as was given to one Peer Ghulam Nabi-respondent No. 2. The learned Single Judge accepted the prayer of the writ-petitioner by referring to the case of Peer Ghulam Nabi-respondent No. 2 because his petition bearing No. 221 of 1980 was allowed by this Court on 24.05.1982. The learned Single Judge also noticed the arguments of the appellant-State that Letters Patent Appeal was pending but refused to defer the hearing on that account because no firm stand was taken by the appellant.

(2.) In order to satisfy ourselves, we summoned the record of SWP No. 221 of 1980 and LPA No. 8/1982 relatable to that petition. The aforesaid appeal namely LPA No. 8/1982 has been dismissed for non prosecution on 26.08.1997 and the matter has attained finality. Accordingly, it has to be held that the decision taken in SWP No. 221 of 1980, decided on 24.05.1982 has become binding.

(3.) It is appropriate to mention that Peer Ghulam Nabi was held entitled to consideration for the post of Superintendent in the year 1979 when the person juniors to him were promoted to the post of Superintendent. The learned Writ Court also concluded that on account of non consideration of the case of Sh. Peer Ghulam Nabi for promotion to the post of Superintendent, promotion given to private respondents was liable to be quashed. However, it did not quash the promotion because those persons were working as Superintendent for about two and half years. To avoid any ugly situation, the State Government was asked to accommodate the writ petitioner namely Peer Ghulam Nabi without disturbing order of promotion already made in favour of private respondents. The aforesaid difficulty was also obviated because one post was kept reserved on the directions issued by the Supreme Court. The directions issued in Peer Ghulam Nabi's case are as under: