Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6261 (JK)

ABID YOUNAS v. MR. MOHAMMAD ASHRAF MIR AND OTHERS (CPSW/27/2016 ,CPSW/645/2016)

CPSW/56/2016 · 2025-02-19

Sanjay Dhar

Contempt Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Item No.7 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CPSW No.56/2016 c/w CPSW No.27/2016 CPSW No.645/2016 ABID YOUNAS …PETITIONER(s) Through: None. Vs. MOHAMMAD ASHRAF MIR & Ors. …Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Syed Musaib, Dy. AG. CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR,JUDGE ORDER 19.02.2025 1. The petitioners through the medium of these contempt petitions are seeking implementation of orders passed by the Writ court in the writ petitions filed by them seeking relief in accordance with the relief granted to the writ petitioners in the case titled “Hamidullah Dar and others vs. State of J&K & others” (SWP No.487/2009 decided on 31.12.2014). 2. The respondents after considering claim of the petitioners have rejected the same in terms of orders dated 06.12.2016, whereby it has been recorded that in the judgment passed in Hamidullah Dar’s case, it has been categorically held that such of the candidates who participated in the selection process after the written test was conducted on 22.02.2009 and questioned the written test thereafter or did not question the written examination are to be ignored as they, after their failure to question the written examination before participating any further in the selection process or waiting for selection process to get finalized, cannot be allowed to turn around and question the written examination or selection process. 2 3. The judgment passed by this Court in Hamidullah Dar’s case (supra) has been held to be a judgment in personam by a Division Bench of this Court in the case titled “Zahid Snober & anr. Vs. State of J&K & Ors” (LPASW No.199/2019 decided on 28.01.2022). Therefore, the stand of the respondents that the claim of the petitioners is not covered by the judgment passed in Hamidullah Dar’s case, appears to be justified. 4. Thus, no case for proceeding against the respondents is made out. The contempt petitions are dismissed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 19.02.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 21.02.2025 08:41