STATE OF J & K AND ORS. versus SANJEEV KUMAR AND ORS.

STATE OF J & K AND ORS. versus SANJEEV KUMAR AND ORS.

Matter remitted for fresh consideration as High Court did not examine validity of select list beyond one year, effect of Rule 57, and other crucial factors; appointments dependent on existence and notification of vacancies to be reconsidered; files regarding policy decision to be produced.

Parties
Appellant: State of Jammu & Kashmir; Appellant: Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission; Appellant/respondent: Dr. Muzaffar Jan; Appellant/respondent: Dr. Ghulam Rasool Wani; Appellant/respondent: Dr. Ghanshyam Saini; Respondent: Dr. Sanjeev Kumar; Respondent: Dr. Arun Gandotra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench of High Court; Matter Remitted to High Court
Outcome
Appeals disposed of; matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration.
Legal Topics
Direct Recruitment, Ad Hoc Promotion, Select List Validity, Policy Decision in Recruitment, Vacancy Notification
Service Law Direct Recruitment Ad Hoc Promotion Select List Validity Policy Decision in Recruitment Vacancy Notification

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Jammu & Kashmir

Appellant

Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission

Appellant

Dr. Muzaffar Jan

Appellant/respondent

Dr. Ghulam Rasool Wani

Appellant/respondent

Dr. Ghanshyam Saini

Appellant/respondent

Dr. Sanjeev Kumar

Respondent

Dr. Arun Gandotra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench of High Court; Matter Remitted to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appointments made from select/waiting list were valid when vacancies were not notified but existed due to ad hoc promotion.
  2. 2 Whether eligibility should be reckoned from advertisement date or select list date.
  3. 3 Whether High Court erred in treating posts beyond notified as future vacancies.

Ratio Decidendi

Matter remitted for fresh consideration as High Court did not examine validity of select list beyond one year, effect of Rule 57, and other crucial factors; appointments dependent on existence and notification of vacancies to be reconsidered; files regarding policy decision to be produced.

Court Disposition

Appeals disposed of; matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration.

Orders

  • Parties permitted to file further affidavits and documents in support of their stand.
  • State to produce policy decision files as required by High Court.