Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2024 DAILYLAW 880 (JK)

FAROOQ AHMAD GANAI v. PIYUSH SINGLA AND ORS. (SCHOOL EDUCATION)

CCP(S)/171/2024 · 2026-08-10

Shahzad Azeem

body2024

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Serial No. 52 Regular Cause List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CCP(S) 171/2024 in [SWP 1557/2012] Farooq Ahmad Ganai …Appellant(s)\Petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. N. A. Malik, Advocate. V/s Piyush Singla & Ors. … Respondent(s) Through: - Mr. T. A. Lone, Dy. AG. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE. (ORDER) 10.08.2026 01. The Petitioner had filed the writ petition, being SWP No. 1557/2012, which came to be disposed of by this Court vide Order dated 6 August 2015. The relevant operative portion of the said Order reads as under: In the aforesaid background, the respondents in Annexure “A” of Government Order No. 185-Edu of 2011 dated 14-03-2011 in place of Mohammad Manzoor-ul-Haq shall consider petitioner, Shir Farooq Ahmed Ganai for appointment, being a next meritorious candidate available for the post, necessary orders shall be passed by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date copy of the order is served upon them. 02. In compliance with the Order dated 6 August 2015, the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Teacher in District Bandipora. The respondents have issued the appointment order dated 1 April 2026, in favour of the petitioner as Teacher in District Bandipora pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 1 of 2008 dated 22 April 2008. 03. The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner for appointment being the next meritorious candidate available for the post. In this regard necessary compliance is done in terms of order dated 1 April 2026. 04. Although, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents were required to grant the consequential benefits, but looking to the order under implementation, there is no such direction. Therefore, if any cause or grievance still remains to be redressed, the petitioner is at liberty to take legal course, if so advised. 05. In view of the substantial compliance demonstrated by the respondents, nothing survives for further adjudication in the contempt petition. The contempt proceedings, are accordingly, closed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 06. Interim direction(s), if any, shall stand vacated. (SHAHZAD AZEEM) JUDGE SRINAGAR August, 10th, 2026 Shoaib Javid