Rigzin Motup & Ors vs Ut Of Ladakh & Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 2004 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Rigzin Motup & Ors vs Ut Of Ladakh & Ors on 7 April, 2026

Author: Rahul Bharti

Bench: Rahul Bharti

                                                             Regular list
                                                             Serial No.09& 10

 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                 AT JAMMU
Case:- CM(M) Nos.1702/2026 & 1703/2026 in
       WP(C) No.65/2025

Rigzin Motup & Ors.
                                      .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)

              Through: Mr. Akhil Ahmed Bardi, Advocate
                       (through virtual mode)

             Vs

UT of Ladakh & Ors.
                                                  .....Respondent(s)

              Through:     Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, CGSC vice
                           Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE

                              ORDER

(07.04.2026)

1. The petitioners, all of whom are residents of Ladakh,

came forward with institution of writ petition through Advocate-

Mr. Akhil Ahmed Bardi.

2. The writ petition was taken cognizance in terms of an

order dated 03.01.2025 in assailing a notification for selection

through interview on contractual basis under the National

Health Mission (NHM) for UT of Ladakh, issued on 28.12.2024.

3. On the very first date of hearing, the respondents came

to cause their appearance through Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned

DSGI and sought time to file reply to the writ petition.

4. The writ petition came to suffer dismissal for non-

prosecution in terms of an order dated 15.12.2025 on account

of repeated non-appearance of the counsel for the petitioners.

5. This Court can safely excuse the petitioners from any

default in appearing in the matter as they were not supposed to CM(M) No.1487/2026 in

appear and particularly, being residents of UT of Ladakh, it was

not expected of anyone of the petitioners to come to Jammu and

attend the case in absence of their counsel but surely the

counsel of the petitioners has not acted with due diligence in

pursuing the brief which he had taken up on behalf of the

petitioners.

6. The petitioners, through the same very counsel, have

come forward with the time barred restoration application for

seeking restoration of the dismissed writ petition citing the

reason that the petitioners' counsel was out of India for some

religious pilgrimage.

7. The restoration of the dismissed writ petition is thus

being solicited.

8. Though this Court is not convinced that learned counsel

for the applicants/petitioners should have come up in the

manner in which the restoration application along with

condonation of delay application have been preferred,

nonetheless, in the interest of justice and considering the

topography of the UT of Ladakh related to hardship of the

petitioners, this Court allows both applications.

9. The writ petition is restored to its original number.

10. List the main petition WP(C) No.65/2025 on

29.04.2026.

(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU 07.04.2026 Sneha CM(M) No.1487/2026 in