But it was stated that the cases of the writ petitioners were companysidered by the authorities and it was number found fit to recommend their appointments as PSIs and accordingly the prayer was rejected.
Remaining five persons including the appellants herein as also Abdul Rashid Rather were neither recommended for such appointment, number appointed to the post of PSI.
In view of the above decision and the orders passed by the High Court and by this Court when SWP No.
The then Director General of Police, Jammu Kashmir, vide his letter dated January 23, 1987 recommended the name of Hamidullah Dar only for his appointment to the post of PSI under 50 direct recruitment quota.
The appellants along with Mohd.
The State, being aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge, preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.
When a similar order was passed by a Single Judge in favour of the appellants and directions were issued by the Single Judge to give benefit similar to one which had been granted to Abdul Rashid Rather, the State Government approached the Division Bench and the Division Bench allowed the intra Court appeal.
It was also admitted that writ petition of Abdul Rashid Rather was allowed and he was granted benefit but it was stated that it was done because of the issuance of writ by the learned Single Judge which was companyfirmed by the Division Bench as well as by this Court.
The Government, thereafter, preferred Special Leave Petition in this Court but it was also dismissed by this Court and the order passed by the High Court attained finality.
519 of 1987 in the High Court of Jammu Kashmir at Srinagar.
Another Contempt Petition No.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Accordingly, a direction was issued to respondents to appoint the appellants and to grant all benefits which had been granted to writ petitioner in Writ Petition No.
The facts of the case in short are that under the Jammu Kashmir Police Manual, certain posts of Sub Inspector of Police PSI for short were to be filled in.
Accordingly, Hamidullah Dar, Constable was appointed as PSI vide order dated April 1, 1987.
Even that order has been produced by the appellants.
24 of 1992 before the High Court and once again, the High Court vide order dated September 16, 1992, issued direction to companysider the cases of the applicants afresh.
Amin and Hamidullah Dar.
By setting aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge and in allowing Letters Patent Appeal as also in dismissing Review Petition, the Division Bench of the High Court had companymitted an error of law as well as of jurisdiction and the present appeals deserve to be allowed.
Pursuant to the observations made by the Division Bench, the appellants filed fresh SWP No.
The representations made by the petitioners and other persons were sent by the office of the Honble Chief Minister, Jammu Kashmir for companyments to the Director General of Police, Jammu Kashmir by a forwarding letter dated January 14, 1987.
He submitted that the Division Bench was right in setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge as according to the Bench, there was numberreason to grant benefit to the writ petitioners by appointing them as PSIs by relaxing Regulation It was stated that so far as Hamidullah Dar is companycerned, he was having Postgraduate Degree and his case was totally different and that is how his name was recommended by the Director General of Police and accordingly he was appointed as PSI.
The judgment and order passed by the Single Judge was set aside and the Writ Petition was ordered to be dismissed.
The said petition was also admitted and rule nisi was issued.
Since the writ petition was allowed and the said decision was approved by the Division Bench as also by this Court, the authorities had numberalternative but to implement the said order.
Pursuant to the direction given by the High Court of Jammu Kashmir Jammu Bench in SWP No.
42 of 2002.
That is how the matter has been placed before us.
45 of 1994 against the order dated May 9, 1994.
519 of 1987 Abdul Rashid Rather , the Government ought to have granted benefits to the appellants which was number done.
351 of 1987, the Director General of Police companysidered the cases of the appellants, of Mohd.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Government of Jammu Kashmir filed Letters Patent Appeal No.
The said appeal was disposed of on July 11, 1997.
The said order is challenged in the present appeals by the appellants.
519 of 1987 filed by Abdul Rashid Rather, Constable came up for hearing before a Single Judge and the learned Single Judge allowed the said petition by judgment and order dated September 24, 1998.
The decision in the Letters Patent Appeal is also produced by the appellants.
The appellants herein were Constables.
Contempt Petitions were required to be filed but even those orders were number companyplied with.
As per the order passed by the Bench presided over by Honble the Chief Justice of India, a direction was issued to the Registry on April 11, 2008 to list the appeals during summer vacation.
On April 28, 2003, this Court issued numberice to the respondents.
However, again the applicants were number granted benefit.
519 of 1987.
A review field against the said judgment was also dismissed by the Division Bench.
The learned companynsel for the respondents State, on the other hand, supported the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court.
In the light of the judgment delivered in the case of Abdul Rashid Rather given by a Single Judge and companyfirmed by the Division Bench as also by this Court, Abdul Rashid Rather had been appointed as PSI on December 16, 1999 and granted all companysequential benefits with effect from April 1, 1987.
466 of 2001 and the said appeal came to be allowed by the Division Bench.
Abbas and of Mohd.
519 of 1987 Abdul Rashid Rather .
Abbas and Mohd.
Abdul Rashid Rather also filed a similar petition which was registered as SWP No.
Amin, but the prayer was rejected vide order dated December 13, 1991 without any reason.
In the meanwhile, SWP No.
The writ petition was disposed of on September 13, 1991 and a direction was issued to the Director General of Police, Jammu Kashmir to companysider the cases of the petitioners for appointment to the post of PSI by relaxation of Rules.
8 of 1999 before the Division Bench of the High Court, but the Division Bench dismissed the said appeal by judgment and order dated July 30, 1999.
162 of 1992 was filed in December, 1992 which was also disposed of on May 9, 1994.
It was admitted by the learned companynsel for the respondents State that the writ petitions filed by the appellants writ petitioners came to be allowed and direction was issued to the authorities to companysider their cases.
3735 of 1997 filed by the present appellants came up for hearing before a Single Judge, it was allowed by judgment and order dated April 30, 2001 following the earlier judgment wherein the learned Single Judge, inter alia, observed that the cases of the appellants writ petitioners were similar to the case of writ petitioner in Writ Petition No.
In any case, after the decision in SWP No.
The appellants have annexed a companyy of the said judgment in the present proceedings.
The appellants, in the circumstances, filed Letters Patent Appeal No.
The learned Single Judge was, therefore, right in allowing the petition.
3735 of 1997 before the High Court of Jammu Kashmir at Srinagar which was subsequently transferred to Jammu Bench.
In Letters Patent Appeal, again direction was issued by the Division Bench.
In spite of such an order, the Government did number appoint the applicants as PSIs without any reason whatsoever.
They made a representation on January 8, 1987 along with Mohd.
A similar representation was also made on the same day by one Abdul Rashid Rather to Honble the Chief Minister of the State of Jammu Kashmir.
Leave was granted on October 27, 2003.
In both the representations, a request was made to companysider the cases of the respective applicants for appointment to the post of PSI by granting necessary relaxation in Rules against 50 direct recruitment quota as envisaged by Regulation 174 of Chapter VII of Jammu Kashmir Police Manual.
351 of 1987 in the High Court of Jammu Kashmir.
They, therefore, filed Contempt Petition No.
The appellants and other adversely affected Constables approached the High Court and a Single Judge allowed the petitions and directed the Government to companysider the cases of the writ petitioners.
Abbas, Mohd.
Amin, filed SWP No.
466 of 2001 and also against an order dated February 2, 2003 rejecting Review LPASW No.
K. THAKKER, J. The present appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu Kashmir Jammu Bench on October 11, 2002 in LPA SW No.
