Sudeershan Kumar vs Fareed Ahmad Ganie
2023 Latest Caselaw 945 j&K/2

                                                                          Sr. No.11
                                                                          Suppl. 1
  IN THE HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT SRINAGAR


                             CM No. 4799/2023
                            In LPA No. 150/2023
                             CM No. 4800/2023
                            Caveat No. 1887/2023

Sudeershan Kumar                                          ...Petitioner(s)/appellant(s)

Through:     Mr. Aseem Kumar Sawhney, Advocate

                                       Vs.

Fareed Ahmad Ganie                                                  ...Respondent(s)

Through:     Mr. B.A. Misri, Advocate, for caveator.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
                                 ORDER

14.08.2023

1. With the appearance of Mr. B.A. Misri, learned counsel for the caveator, Caveat No. 1887/2023 stands discharged.

2. Heard Mr. Aseem Kumar Sawhney, learned counsel for the petitioner also heard Mr. B.A. Misri, learned counsel for the caveator.

3. Notice.

4. Mr. B.A. Misri, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. Notice, accordingly, is waived.

5. The present appeal has been preferred against order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the Contempt Court in CPSW No. 98/2017 directing framing of rules against the appellant. The said contempt petition has arisen out of the order/judgment dated 04.02.2016 passed by the Writ Court in SWP No. 1380/2015. The direction of the Writ Court is as follows:

"The writ petition alongwith connected MP(s) is diposed of and respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in terms of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 for his permanent absorption and regularization and pass orders preferably within eight weeks from the date copy of this order is served.

Disposed of as above."

6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the said exercise was duly undertaken but it was found that the present respondent, writ petitioner, was not qualified for regularization in view of Sections 3 and 5 of the J&K Civil Services (Special Provision Act), 2010, inasmuch as, the writ petitioner being middle pass, contrary to the statutory requirement of 10th Class cannot be considered and since, the writ petitioner cannot be regularized contrary to the statutory provisions, no contempt is made out and as such, the framing of rule by the Contempt Court would greatly prejudice the appellant.

7. On the other hand, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondent, that the said plea was taken by the appellant as many as three times, which was not accepted by the Contempt Court and accordingly, the Contempt Court proceeded to frame rules.

8. We will examine the issue on the next date of hearing.

9. List the matter for final hearing on 14.09.2023.

10. In the meantime, impugned order dated 26.07.2023 shall remain stayed.

               (M.A. CHOWDHARY)                      (N. KOTISWAR SINGH)
                    JUDGE                                CHIEF JUSTICE
SRINAGAR
14.08.2023
Junaid