GHULAM RASOOL LONE versus STATE OF J & K & ORS.

GHULAM RASOOL LONE versus STATE OF J & K & ORS.

Relief was denied as the petitioner sought promotion several years after the alleged illegal promotion and after others had pursued their claims promptly, thereby sitting on the fence. Discretionary jurisdiction could be refused due to delay and laches, and the aspect of public interest and third-party rights required denying relief. Equality under Articles 14 and 16 must be enforced in legality, not illegality.

Parties
Petitioner: Ghulam Rasool Lone; Respondents: State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) No. 14126 of 2009 / Supreme Court Disposition on Appeal From High Court Letters Patent Appeal No. 66 of 2005
Outcome
Special Leave Petition dismissed summarily
Legal Topics
Delay and Laches, Illegal Promotion, Equality Under Articles 14 and 16, Equity in Service Matters, Discretionary Jurisdiction Under Article 226
Constitutional Law Service Law Delay and Laches Illegal Promotion Equality Under Articles 14 and 16 Equity in Service Matters Discretionary Jurisdiction Under Article 226

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ghulam Rasool Lone

Petitioner

State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) No. 14126 of 2009 / Supreme Court Disposition on Appeal From High Court Letters Patent Appeal No. 66 of 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay and laches preclude relief for illegal promotion in violation of Articles 14 and 16
  2. 2 Whether discretionary relief under Article 226 can be denied on grounds of delay
  3. 3 Whether equity in service matters may be enforced in legality and not illegality

Ratio Decidendi

Relief was denied as the petitioner sought promotion several years after the alleged illegal promotion and after others had pursued their claims promptly, thereby sitting on the fence. Discretionary jurisdiction could be refused due to delay and laches, and the aspect of public interest and third-party rights required denying relief. Equality under Articles 14 and 16 must be enforced in legality, not illegality.

Court Disposition

Special Leave Petition dismissed summarily

Orders

  • No direction for promotion or back wages to petitioner
  • Judgment of Division Bench affirmed as not arbitrary or illegal