Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 558 (JK)

Manzoor Ahmad Bhat v. State

2013-09-17

Mansoor Ahmad Mir

body2013
1. By the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner has entered into second round of litigation questioning the communication dated 23.06.2008 made by the Manager, Government Poultry Farm, Umerhere, whereby he has been informed that his case for regularization of his services has been turned down by the Government, on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 2. Petitioner earlier filed SWP No. 1197/2005, titled as, Manzoor Ahmad Bhat v. State & others, and the same came to be allowed vide judgment and order dated 11.04.2007. While disposing of the writ petition, it was observed that the respondents did not consider the communication addressed by the Director Animal Husbandry, Srinagar (annexure P7 to the said petition) while rejecting the case of petitioner for regularization of his services. Accordingly, respondents were directed to consider the case of petitioner afresh in the light of aforesaid communication. It would be appropriate to reproduce the operative portion of the judgment herein. "In the circumstances, the petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of the said communication of the Director Animal Husbandry, Srinagar and take a final decision in the matter within a period of three months from the date this order is served on the respondents." 3. It appears that the department made inter se communication with the Government and the Government vide communication dated 22.04.2008 conveyed the department that the case of petitioner does not fall within the ambit of SRO 64 of 1994 [Refer JKS Soft JKS/943] and as a follow-up action, the respondents have passed the impugned order (annexure `D' to the writ petition). 4. Respondents have filed the reply contesting the writ petition. 5. This writ petition is admitted to hearing. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, I deem it proper to take the petition for final adjudication. 6. Admittedly, the respondents have not passed the consideration order in terms of the judgment passed by this Court. Learned counsel for respondents when asked to state whether the consideration order has been made in terms of the judgment, he replied in negative. Dr. 6. Admittedly, the respondents have not passed the consideration order in terms of the judgment passed by this Court. Learned counsel for respondents when asked to state whether the consideration order has been made in terms of the judgment, he replied in negative. Dr. Zahoor Ahmad Allai, Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Hariperbat, who is present in the court, also stated that no consideration order was made but only a communication was made by the higher authorities stating that the case of petitioner does not fall within the purview of SRO 64 of 1994 [Refer JKS Soft JKS/943]. 7. In the given circumstances, I deem it proper to allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order/communication (Annexure `C' & `D' to the writ petition). Accordingly, the same are quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner afresh in terms of the judgment already passed within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of the order is served upon them. 8. Disposed of along with connected CMP.