[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Nissar Ahmad Malik vs State Of Jk And Ors on 12 February, 2026
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
Serial No.06
REGULAR CAUSE LIST
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
SWP No. 49/2014
Nissar Ahmad Malik ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Shafqat Nazir, Advocate
Vs.
State of JK and Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy. AG
Mr. Arshid, Advocate vice
Mr. P.S. Ahmad, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
ORDER
12.02.2026
1. Heard Mr. Shafqat Nazir, learned counsel for the
petitioner, at length.
2. During the course of submissions from the end of Mr.
Hakim Aman Ali, learned Deputy Advocate General,
arguing for the respondents No. 1 to 4, the attention
of this Court was meant to be drawn to the
reply/objections for and on behalf of respondents No.
1 to 4 filed in this writ petition.
3. However, upon perusal of the physical as well as
digital file, this Court does not find any such
reply/objections for and on behalf of the respondents
No. 1 to 4 obtaining on the record whereas even the
petitioner's counsel stood advanced a copy of said
reply/objections.
4. The filing of the reply/objections on behalf of the
respondents No. 1 to 4 is said to be dating back to
19th November 2014 by reference to the date of
receipt of copy of reply/objections by counsel for the
petitioner.
5. Intriguingly, the Office Noting for the given period
i.e., 2014 to 2015 is missing as a result, whereof this
Court is constrained to direct Mr. Hakim Aman Ali,
learned Deputy Advocate General to confirm the fact
with respect to the receipt, if any, taken with
reference to filing of reply/objections for and on
behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4.
6. This Court is concerned to lay its hand on
reply/objections of the respondents 1 to 4. In view of
the fact that the counter affidavit which later on
came to be submitted on record of this case is
supposedly contrary to the position being taken by
the respondents No. 1 to 4 in their reply/objections
in the context of selection and appointment of
respondent No. 5 which is under a serious challenge
from the end of the petitioner who submits that the
respondent No. 5 has engineered a fraud in gaining
the employment/engagement as Rehaber-e-Taleem
and for that purpose has even taken the liberty of
misrepresenting import of Hon'ble the Division
Bench's judgment and also manipulating the
selection record at the end of concerned authorities.
7. Let Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, learned Deputy Advocate
General confirm this fact about filing of
reply/objections on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4
in the year 2014 in the present writ petition.
8. Copy of this order be provided to Mr. Hakim Aman
Ali, learned Deputy Advocate General, for notice and
compliance.
9. List in continuation again on 25.02.2026.
10. Mr. Arshid Ahmad, learned Advocate vice Mr. P.S.
Ahmad, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 5
submits that Advocate Mr. P.S. Ahmad no longer
intends to carry with engagement as counsel for the
respondent No. 5 and, therefore, seeks his
relievement.
11. Mr. P.S. Ahmad, learned Advocate for respondent
No. 5 is, thus, relieved as such.
12. The Registrar Judicial, Srinagar is directed to
issue notice to the respondent No. 5 by addressing
the notice to the Chief Education Officer, Kulgam
who shall then serve the notice upon the respondent
No. 5 by reference to his posting in the School of
Government Girls Middle School, Khull (Norabad),
D.H Pora, Kulgam and return a report of having
served copy of notice to the respondent No.5.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
12.02.2026
Shabroz
