MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHATEEB Vs. SUMAN LATA BAGHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALLEGING violation of court orders by respondents, the petitioner seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against them. The petition arises in following circumstances:

(2.) ONE Nazir Ahmad Wani Assistant Drug Controller, Kashmir was adjusted as Deputy Drug Controller on officiating promotion under Government Order No. 123 -HME of 2004 dated 12.2.2004. This was challenged by petitioner on the ground of seniority and better suitability vide Service writ petition No. 383/2004. Simultaneous thereto the said Nazir Ahmad Wani too had filed the writ petition being SWP No. 343 of 2004, seeking continuation on the post of Deputy Drug Controller and charge allowance etc. Both the writ petitions were decided by common judgment passed by a bench of this court (Honble Mr.Justice Nisar Ahmad Kakru,) on 6.7.2004, whereunder the officiating appointment of Shri Nazir Ahmad Wani aforesaid was quashed, and the Government asked to fill up the post in accordance with rules with liberty to make stop gap arrangement if required. Thus petitioners writ petition 382/2004 was allowed, whereas that of Nazir Ahmad Wani was dismissed quashing his officiating promotion as Deputy Drug Controller.

(3.) THE said judgment was appealed against by said Nazir Ahmad Wani through Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench of this court which was disposed of on 3. 8. 2004 with a direction to fill up the post of Deputy Drug Controller as aforesaid under rules within a period of four months the time fixed according to the statement made by Government counsel in consultations with the administrative department. The judgment of the appellate bench was again sought to be reopened by appellant through the medium of review under petition No. 137 of 2004, which was disposed of by the concerned bench on 2.9.2004. with clarification, that if pending regular appointment some sort of stop gap arrangement would be required, the same be made from amongst eligible persons in accordance with rules governing the matter; and thus ended the chain of litigation. It would be appropriate to mention that all orders passed in the writ petitions, LPA and the review petition were in knowledge of the respondents.