LexSHEIKH JAVEED AHMAD & ANR. versus STATE OF J&K & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1503 : 2025 INSC 624 Sheikh Javeed Ahmad & Anr. v. State of J&K & Ors. (Civil Appeal No(s). 4426-4427 of 2025) 27 March 2025 [Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the appointments of the appellants as Assistant Professors as being incompatible with the rules and regulations. Headnotes† Service Law – High Court canceled the appointment of the appellants as Assistant Professors in the Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (PMR), Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura, Srinagar (SKIMS) holding that they did not have the prescribed qualification of diploma course in PMR – It was held that they did not make any effort for admission into the institutions that ran the aforesaid course and that there was nothing on record to show that obtaining a diploma in PMR was impossible – Challenge to: Held: High Court erred in setting aside the appointment of the appellants – Notification issued by the competent authority, blocking two positions of Assistant Professor for the appellants shows that the two candidates were to be sponsored for two- year diploma in their specialty whereafter, they would serve the institution for seven years in accordance with the necessary bond – Therefore, it was SKIMS that had to make arrangements to secure admission for the appellants however, it could not arrange for the appellants to undertake the course – Further, it was also found that various colleges had shut down the diploma course – Moreover, the appellants did undertake such training and the first appellant, even secured a letter of recommendation by the Head of Department, AIIMS Delhi – Appellants to be 1504 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports reinstated in service as Assistant Professors with continuity in service. [Paras 8, 9, 11, 12, 15] Service matters – Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability – Discussed. Case Law Cited Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Misha & Ors. [1998] Supp. 1 SCR 77 : (1998) 7 SCC 273; Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab [2005] Supp. 1 SCR 215 : (2005) 5 SCC 136; Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto [2010] 10 SCR 561: (2010) 9 SCC 655; High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat & Ors. [2003] 2 SCR 799 : (2003) 4 SCC 712 – referred to. List of Acts J&K Constitution. List of Keywords Appointments as Assistant Professors; Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS); Apical Selection Committee; Senior Residents in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (PMR); Diploma courses in PMR; Two-year diploma; ‘Impossibility’ of obtaining the prescribed qualifications; All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (AIIMS); Requirement of a diploma relaxed; Public interest litigation; PIL in service matters; Reinstatement; Continuity in service; Impossibility in law. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 4426-4427 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2018 and 11.07.2014 of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar in PIL No. 43 of 2014 and PIL No. 861 of 2010 respectively Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellants: Gaurav Pachnanda, A.M.Magrey, Sr. Advs., Nitish Gupta, Farman Ali, Ms. Nikita Jaitely, Dhruv Arora, Chandra Prakash. Advs. for the Respondents: G.M. Kawoosa, Pashupathi Nath Razdan. [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1505 Sheikh Javeed Ahmad & Anr. v. State of J&K & Ors. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order Leave Granted. 2. These appeals question the correctness of a judgment and order dated 11th July 2014 passed in OWP (PIL) No.861 of 2010 and the order dated 30th March 2018 in RPIL No.43 of 2014 as well as the order dated 30th March, 2018 in RPPIL No.43/2014, by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar, whereby appointments as Assistant Professors, granted to the appellants herein, namely, Dr. Sheikh Javeed Ahmad & Dr. Abdul Hamid Rather, were set aside as being incompatible with the rules and regulations, and the reviews sought thereagainst being dismissed as well. At the outset, we note an order of this Court passed on 3rd November 2023- “When the matters are called on for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before us that out of the three petitioners of the Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) out of which the present proceeding arises, two are not traceable and one of the three persons in whose names that action has been brou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.