HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU SWP No. 2354/2018 IA No. 1/2018 Mohd Hafiz …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: None. Vs State of J&K & Ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Anishwar Chatterji Koul, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE ORDER (03.09.2026) 01. The instant matter has come up before this Court after a lapse of eight years. During this intervening period, the petitioner has not taken any steps for getting the instant petition listed. 02. Today, when the case was listed before this Court, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Even otherwise also, the instant petition has been rendered infructuous in the light of order/judgment passed by the Apex Court and also having regard to the nature of reliefs sought in the instant petition, which, for the facility of reference, is produced as under:- (i) Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Order No. ZEO/G/138-41 dated 30.04.2012 issued by respondent No. 4 whereby the respondent No. 5 admittedly being lower in merit than the petitioner herein as shown in the panel and contrary to his right and entitlement has been appointed as RET under Science Stream in UPS (G) Battel Educational Zone Ghat, District Doda. (ii) Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow due consideration to the case of the petitioner Serial No. 67 2 for his appointment as RET under Science Stream in UPS (G) Battel, Educational Zone Ghat, District Doda w.e.f. the date the respondent No. 5 has been allowed such appointment illegally. (iii) Issue a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from allowing consideration for regularization of the petitioner against the post of General Line Teacher on the basis of his illegal appointment allowed as RET under Science Stream in UPS (G) Battel, Educational Zone Ghat, District Doda. 03. Since the petitioner is not figuring in the select panel, therefore, in the light of rider imposed by the Apex Court in case titled, Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors Vs. Saba Wani”, the instant petition with the efflux of time, has been rendered infructuous. This, perhaps, is the reason that the petitioner is not appearing today as the petitioner is aware that the instant petition has been rendered infructuous which has come up before this Court after a lapse of long eight years. 04. In view of the above, the instant petition is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. 05. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. (WASIM SADIQ NARGAL) JUDGE Jammu 03.09.2026 Renu