Allowing a plea by some aggrieved employees of the SHD, a division bench of Justice Ritu Tagore (Member Judicial) and Prasant Kumar (Member Administrative) quashed the final seniority lists of MTS for Budgam, Baramulla and Bandipora districts. The Tribunal observed that the lists had been issued in violation of statutory orders governing cadre restructuring, saying there was no discretion left to continue with outdated or obsolete classifications.

The Tribunal quashed and set-aside the SHD’s order dated May 15, 2025 whereby the aggrieved candidates’ claim was rejected besides scrapping the tentative and final seniority lists and all related circulars that paved the way for district-level Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs).

The Tribunal observed as “cryptic and non-speaking, the SHD’s rejection order,” saying the department failed to meaningfully address the objections raised by employees or comply with earlier directions of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal directed the AHD to a fresh speaking and reasoned consideration order in compliance with the earlier order it had passed.

In their plea, as many as the aggrieved MTS of SHD through their counsel, advocates Ishtiyaq and Ms Inayat had sought court’s intervention to quash the rejection order dated May 15, 2025. They had also sought to set aside the final seniority lists dated May 21, 2025, May 24, 2025 and May 24, 2025 for districts Budgam, Baramulla and Bandipora, respectively.

The aggrieved employees’ contention was that once the statutory framework had abolished the earlier nomenclature, the government could not have legally continued with wing-wise or designation-wise seniority.

In its decision, the Tribunal noted that despite S.O. 133 of 2022, which redesignated all Class-IV posts as MTS, the department continued to reflect obsolete designations such as Assistant Stockman, Chowkidar and Fieldman while fixing seniority. “This defeated the very purpose of the statutory reorganisation aimed at eliminating artificial distinctions among similarly placed employees.”

The Tribunal also observed that in a similarly situated matter, identical relief had already been granted by the CAT Jammu Bench saying denial of parity would amount to hostile discrimination.

With this conclusion, the Tribunal directed the SHD to prepare and notify a fresh final seniority list of the MTS in consonance with SO 133 of 2022 within eight weeks and thereafter convene the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting expeditiously. It also ordered the Department to clearly notify any exceptions for posts requiring technical qualifications, as permissible under the statutory order.

The Tribunal also directed the Department to amend the Recruitment Rules expeditiously to provide uniform career progression for all Class-IV employees in compliance with the SO 151 of 2022.

The post MTS designation binding on all departments: CAT appeared first on Greater Kashmir.

Special Judge (NDPS Cases) Srinagar Vinod Kumar rejected the bail plea of Ghulam Nabi Dar of Sheeri Baramulla, observing that the prosecution has made out a strong prima facie case and that the rigorous bar on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was clearly attracted. Dar is one of the two accused in FIR No. 16/2025, registered by police at Police Station Shalteng.

The case was registered after a contraband was recovered from a vehicle during checking at Sozeith Srinagar on February 24 last year.

Counsel for the accused contended that the rigours of Section 37 were not attracted, arguing that the alleged recovery did not fall within the definition of commercial quantity and that the accused deserved to be enlarged on bail.

Opposing the plea, Special Public Prosecutor Ms Shafaq submitted that the seized substance was of commercial quantity, and therefore bail was statutorily barred. She argued that the offence was grave in nature and had devastating consequences for society, particularly the youth including the young girls.

“If released on bail, the accused is likely to continue such activities and destroy the lives of the younger generation,” she submitted.

After hearing the parties, the court observed that it meticulously applied the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which impose stringent restrictions on the grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs.

The court held that the prosecution had produced sufficient corroborative material, including bank transactions between the accused, mobile call data reflecting regular communication, and recovery of the mobile phone used in the alleged transactions from the applicant’s residence. These factors, the court said, prima facie establish a nexus beyond mere confessional statements.

Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the court reiterated that bail can be granted only when the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

“In the instant case, the recovery of 910 grams of heroin-like substance—far exceeding the commercial quantity threshold of 250 grams for heroin under the NDPS Act—coupled with the applicant’s prima facie involvement through vehicle ownership, financial transactions, and corroborative disclosures, precludes any such satisfaction,” it said.

The Court that the material on record disclosed a strong prima facie case and that there was a tangible risk of the accused re-engaging in similar activities. It dismissed the bail application, accordingly.

The post Srinagar Court denies bail to drug peddler appeared first on Greater Kashmir.

Balwinder Kumar, a candidate from Samba district who had applied under the SC category, was denied participation in the interview for the post of Orderly in District Baramulla after being shortlisted. Kumar had applied for the post in response to the advertisement notification dated January 10, 2019.

Kumar’s interview was scheduled to be held in the office of the Principal District and Session Judge, Baramulla, on 16 July 2019. However, he was not permitted to participate in the interview process on the grounds that he belonged to District Samba and was, therefore, ineligible for the post notified for District Baramulla.

Subsequently, Kumar had challenged the refusal primarily on the ground that Clause 1 (i) (a) of the advertisement notification of January 10, 2019 was unconstitutional and that no discrimination could be practiced by the State on the ground of residence.

Opposing the plea, the High court through its Registrar General, Principal Secretary to Chief Justice and PD&SJ Baramula (Chairman Interview committee for Class-IV of District Baramulla) contended that various posts borne on different cadres of the Subordinate Courts are governed by J&K Ministerial Staff of the Subordinate Courts (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2016 which empowers the Chief Justice to make appointments to District cadre posts as specified in Schedule-A of the said Rules.

They contended that a conjoint reading of Rule 2(f), 2(n) and Rule 5 and 12 of the Rules of 2016 read with Entry 19 of Schedule-A makes it clear that the Chief Justice was empowered to make appointments to the district cadre posts and regulate such selections and appointments by framing regulations providing for method of selection to a particular post.

For its decision, the Court framed two issues, whether the petitioner having submitted his application despite being aware of Clause 1 (i) (a) of the advertisement notification dated January 10, 2019 was estopped from challenging the constitutionality of the clause after having been rejected by the Selection Committee at the stage of interview.

The second issue framed was whether Clause 1 (i) (a) of the advertisement notification offends Clause 1 and 2 of Article 16 of the Constitution and therefore ultra vires the Constitution.

After hearing the parties, a Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar while allowing Kumar’s plea declared Clause 1(i)(a) of advertisement notification No. 01 of 2019, which restricted eligibility to candidates belonging to the concerned district cadre, as ultra vires the Constitution.

The Court observed that discrimination in public employment on the ground of residence was impermissible unless backed by a law enacted by Parliament under Article 16(3).

The Court noted that “it is now well settled that a candidate by participating in the selection process only accepts the laid down procedure and not the illegality in it”. The participation in a selection process does not bar a candidate from challenging it where the process suffers from incurable illegality or constitutional infirmity, it said.

The Court directed the authorities to conduct Kumar’s interview and consider him for selection against the SC category post of Orderly in District Baramulla.

The post High Court strikes down residence restriction in orderly recruitment appeared first on Greater Kashmir.

The court of Additional Sessions Judge, Manjeet Rai, designated under the NIA Act, acquitted Wajid Ahmad Bhat, Masrat Bilal Bhuru and Rameez Ahmad Dar and ordered their release forthwith, if not required in any other case. The trio from south Kashmir’s Kulgam district had been arrested on October 10, 2022, from a check-post (Naka) near Command Post Batamaloo here, according to prosecution.

The prosecution said that the arrest of the three men was made after grenades and magazines with live rounds were recovered from them and they were booked under the UAPA and Arms Act.

After hearing the parties, the court held that it is settled that in a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that suspicion, however strong, could not take the place of proof. “The present case is marked by material discrepancies about how the accused came to be apprehended and what exactly was recovered from whom,” the court said.

With regard to the absence of independent witnesses, the court observed that the alleged place of occurrence is a busy public area with regular traffic and surrounding shops, facts conceded by three prosecution witnesses. “Yet, no shopkeeper, commuter, passer-by or CRPF personnel from the nearby bunker has been examined, nor even cited as a witness,” it said.

The Court observed that the explanation that people fled on seeing grenades was found to be “inconsistent” across witnesses and appeared “more an afterthought than a consistent circumstance.”

It also underscored that “in a case under the UAPA and Arms Act where the prosecution story hinges on recovery, non-joining of independent witnesses, when clearly possible, weigh against the prosecution”. There were serious lapses in handling the case property including failure to record identifying marks or numbers, preserve seal impressions, or maintain proper Malkhana records, the court said. While the court noted that there were contradictory versions on whether the grenades were sealed when presented to the bomb disposal squad, it said: “This contradiction prevents this Court from safely concluding that the grenades examined by the BD Squad are the same as those allegedly recovered from the accused at the Naka”. “Once the identity of the case property is not firmly established, expert opinion loses probative value,” it added. The court also found discrepancies on how the accused were apprehended, whether they tried to flee, were standing and called for search on suspicion, or had already been apprehended when another officer arrived.

On UAPA charges, the court observed that mere possession allegations were insufficient without proof of specific intention or nexus with terrorist activity.

While the court noted that the only material relied upon were alleged disclosure statements claiming association with banned outfit Al-Badr and transport of arms between Kulgam and Qamarwari, it said: “However, no recoveries followed, no suspect at Qamarwari was identified or arrested, and no call detail records, technical evidence, communication data, financial trail or other corroboration was produced”. With the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish conscious and unauthorised possession of the alleged arms on October 10, 2022, the court held that the charge under Sections 7/25 of the Arms Act was not proved and extended the benefit of doubt to the accused.

The post Special NIA Court Srinagar acquits trio in UAPA case appeared first on Greater Kashmir.

While deciding the appeal by Shammema Begum, a bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar modified the sentence of the 70-year-old woman who was convicted in a 1979 culpable homicide case.

The modification of the order after the court noted the extraordinary delay in the conclusion of the trial and the appeal, along with the woman’s advanced age and deteriorating health.

“The appellant (woman) was convicted in relation to an incident dated 10.07.1979, after a trial spanning over thirty years, she was convicted under Section 304-II RPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs 2,000, and also under Section 324 RPC to one year’s imprisonment with a default stipulation of six months, vide judgment dated 16.07.2009,” the court said.

“Thereafter, more than sixteen years have elapsed in finally hearing and deciding the present appeal,” the court added.

Although upholding her conviction under Section 304-II of the Ranbir Penal Code, the Court reduced the substantive sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment to the period the woman had already served. However, the Court enhanced her fine from Rs 2,000 to Rs 5,000.

In default, the woman shall undergo a further sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment.

While the Court noted that the offence was not “premeditated” and arose in the heat of the moment during a domestic quarrel, it said: “The appellant was from a modest background residing in a remote area of Uri, was now suffering from age-related infirmities, including impaired eyesight”.

The Court reiterated that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution extends to appellate proceedings and the sentencing must balance deterrence with reform and rehabilitation as it relied on Supreme Court decisions.

Noting that no useful purpose would be served by sending the elderly woman back to prison after 46 years of litigation, the Court concluded that ends of justice stood satisfied with the sentence already undergone by her.

The post High Court decides Uri woman’s appeal, flags 46 years of procedural delay appeared first on Greater Kashmir.

The Court observed that the delay in the trial was solely attributable to the prosecution.

The petitioner had sought bail only on the ground of his long incarceration and on account of violation of his right to speedy trial in connection with FIR No. 135/2012 registered at Police Station Saddar Srinagar for various offences including murder under RPC.

The case is pending before an Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar.

“It appears that the learned trial court has made tireless efforts to procure attendance of prosecution witnesses to complete the trial for which the trial court deserves appreciation,” the Bench said.

The prosecution contention is that on July 4, 2012, a complaint was lodged by a woman alleging that her neighbour along with his sons one of them Fahad Maqsood Khan attacked her husband with stones, lathis, bricks and a knife. The injured, G M Shah, later succumbed to his injuries at SKIMS on July 5, 2012. The chargesheet was filed on September 1, 2012.

The Court noted that Fahad has been in custody for over 13 years and out of 33 prosecution witnesses only 29 have been examined so far.

Despite repeated directions by the trial court and even intervention by the SSP Srinagar to secure the presence of witnesses, the prosecution failed to conclude evidence, the court said.

“The witnesses, whose statements are yet to be recorded, are the experts and the police officials. Therefore, it is not a case where some civil witnesses, who may have been won over by the accused and are avoiding to depose in support of the prosecution but it is a case where even the official witnesses are avoiding to help the prosecution in speedy trial of the case”.

The Bench observed that the trial court does have power to terminate the trial by closing the prosecution evidence. “But I am conscious of the fact that in heinous offences like murder, the Courts generally do not take this extreme step, particularly when the witnesses to be examined are expert witnesses and the investigating officer,” Justice Dhar observed.

The Bench observed that the Courts refrain from closing the evidence in such cases lest it may amount to failure of justice. “But this cannot be taken as a device by the prosecution to protract the trial. In such circumstances, the only course open to a criminal court is to enlarge the undertrial accused to bail”.

Allowing his plea, the Bench granted bail to Fahad and directed that the accused be released subject to conditions, including furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties of Rs 1 lakh each.

The post Delay in trial important factor: High Court appeared first on Greater Kashmir.

A Division Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Muhammad Yousuf Wani held this while rejecting a review plea with the observation that issues already considered and decided by the court could not be re-agitated.

In their plea, the aggrieved persons were seeking review of the court’s judgment dated April 9, 2025, whereby their petition challenging the order of July 26, 2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu, had been dismissed.

The petitioners contended that their submissions were not adequately considered and argued that the authorities’ failure to specifically deny certain averments amounted to an admission.

In response to the petitioners’ contentions, the court noted that the issues raised in the review petition had already been examined and decided in the original judgement passed by it.

“The issue as to whether this court has correctly interpreted the stand of either of the parties cannot be a subject matter of review,” the court said.

The court noted that the affidavit filed by the authorities in compliance with the order dated October 1, 2024, disclosed details of 18 persons working pursuant to court orders, which matched the information placed on record by the petitioners through the Right to Information Act.

A review cannot be used to re-agitate settled issues or to correct what a party perceives as an erroneous interpretation, it said.

The court pointed out that the issue as to whether the court had correctly interpreted the stand of either of the parties could not be a subject matter of review.

“The scope of review is very limited in nature, and cannot be extended to the extent of rehearing the issues already considered and decided by the court,” it said.

The court observed that even if it was assumed that the view taken by the court was not correct, still it could not be a ground for review.

A mere repetition of old and overruled arguments is insufficient for exercising jurisdiction of review, it said.

“The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such power can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of such power,” the court said.

It dismissed the review petition, saying it did not find any error apparent on the face of the record which would warrant the exercise of jurisdiction of review.

The post Power of review meant to correct mistake, not to substitute view: High Court appeared first on Greater Kashmir.

“We have observed numerous instances, where the Government has treated similarly situated persons disparately. However, the instant case stands as a classic example where the appellant, the Union Territory of J&K, has adopted a policy of ‘pick and choose’ even in implementing court judgments,” a Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal said while dismissing the government’s related appeals in a recent decision.

The Court observed that while consistency in judicial decisions constitutes the bedrock of any legal system, consistency in State action is indispensable, parallelly, serving to guarantee fairness, non-arbitrariness, and predictability in governance.

Action by the State which fails to exhibit uniformity across similar circumstances shall be deemed vitiated and bad in law on the ground of discrimination, the court said.

In pursuance to the advertisement notice dated October 10, 2013, the JKSSB upon conclusion of the selection process had forwarded the select list of Dental Assistant and Junior Dental Technician to the Director, Health Services, Jammu for issuance of formal appointment orders in favour of the selected candidates.

Some candidates were not considered by the JKSSB for not being in possession of requisite qualification prescribed in the notification, as they were holding Diploma in Dental Hygienist Training Course.

The aggrieved candidates who had participated in the selection process approached the court and the single judge bench vide judgment dated August 31, 2017 directed the JKSSB to treat the aggrieved candidates as eligible for the post of Dental Assistants and consider them for selection and appointment as per merit.

Thereafter, the JKSSB issued revised selection list dated March 22, 2018 and after examining the same, the Health and Medical Education Department found that some of the candidates, who had been earlier selected before the revision of the selection list, were not figuring in the revised select list. Thereafter, the appeals were filed against the single Judge’s decision.

The Court observed that “surprisingly, the judgment dated September 19, 2016 passed in SWP No. 2112/2015 was implemented, whereas the judgment based on the judgment dated September 19, 2016 had been challenged by the appellant.

The Court observed it as “astonishing” that the concerned authorities chose to assail the single Judge’s judgment after the appellant (employer) had itself advised the JKSSB via communication dated November 19, 2015 that candidates possessing a Diploma in Dental Hygienist were eligible for appointment as Dental Assistant and Junior Dental Technician.

The Court observed that the appellant had shown a regrettable disregard for the fate of the successful candidates in the revised select list.  “Instead of rectifying this delay, the appellant chose to challenge the judgment dated 31.08.2017 after 6 long years, solely to protect the appointment of ousted candidates in the revised select list”.

The Court, accordingly, dismissed the appeals with costs of Rs 10,000 payable to each of the candidates who figured in the revised select list issued vide order dated March 22, 2018.

The post High Court slams Govt over ‘selective implementation’ of judicial decisions on equals appeared first on Greater Kashmir.

“The PIL can’t be allowed to be utilised as an instrument for advancing partisan or political agendas or transforming the court into a political platform,” a Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal said and underscored that “lacking material documents and grounded in ambiguity, the petition seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction on the basis of incomplete and unsubstantiated facts, clearly unveiling its political undercurrents”.

“We cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner is the President of PDP, a prominent political party in J&K, but in opposition at present,” the bench said.

The court observed that “while political parties possess manifold legitimate avenues to engage with the electorate, courts cannot be employed as an instrument for achieving electoral advantage”.

The court said that if the petitioner’s claim in the instant matter was assessed against the legal parameters established by the Supreme Court in the judgments it was found that the petitioner had made general and vague averments that “a lot of family members of under trials have requested her to take up the issues raised by her in this petition with the Government of J&K.”

Further, it appears that the instant petition has been initiated by the petitioner for the explicit purpose of garnering political advantage and positioning herself as a crusader of justice for a particular demographic, the court said.

The bench observed that while entertaining a PIL, the courts, in consonance with the Supreme Court guidelines, must also ascertain the petitioner’s purpose, motive, and locus standi in filing the PIL.

“The petitioner has miserably failed to specify the particulars of such families and of those under-trial prisoners, whose cause the petitioner has claimed to project through the medium of this petition and has not even mentioned the nature of the cases in which the under-trial prisoners have been detained in prisons outside J&K,” it said.

The court observed that neither the petitioner has produced nor challenged the specific transfer orders concerning undertrial prisoners from J&K, currently detained outside J&K.

“Detention of the undertrials in the prisons outside J&K is not a universal practice but is based on individual orders issued by the competent authority in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, which are individual specific,” it said.

“We also cannot remain oblivious to the violent past, which the residents of J&K have passed through, because of forces hostile to the unity and integrity of this great country,” the bench said.

The court observed that in fact, the “petitioner too recognises the special circumstances of J&K, when in relief part of this petition, she states that the undertrials be detained in the prisons of J&K, unless the jail authorities furnish reasons before this court demonstrating ‘unavoidable and compelling necessity’ in exceptional cases”.

The detailing of such exceptional cases has been conveniently ignored by the petitioner, the court said.

“Notwithstanding the vagueness and the ulterior motive that prompted the petitioner to approach the government and this court, it is deemed appropriate to observe that under-trials, whose cause, the petitioner claims to have projected in this petition, are facing trials before the respective courts. Judicial avenues were and are available to such undertrials for the redressal of any grievance concerning their detention,” it said.

The omission on their part to avail themselves of these legal remedies is indicative of the fact that they are not genuinely aggrieved by their retention in the prisons outside the J&K, the court said.

Additionally, a robust legal aid framework exists under the Legal Services Authorities Act, monitored by the Supreme Court and the High Court, the court said.

Under this framework, it said, any prisoner aggrieved by illegal state action is provided access to counsel to challenge the legality of such action.

The court said that, as far as the general conditions of the under-trials in the prisons are concerned, in ‘Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2016) 3 SCC 700’, the Supreme Court has issued a slew of guidelines to ensure proper medical care and basic amenities affecting the prison population.

Observing that where public interest is in doubt or compromised by extraneous considerations, it must be declined, the court dismissed Mehboob’s plea as being “misconceived”.

The post Courts not political platforms: HC dismisses Mehbooba’s undertrials’ repatriation plea appeared first on Greater Kashmir.

A full bench headed by Chief Justice Arun Palli and comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Shahzad Azeem adjourned the matter to February 11 next year, while making it clear that in case the response was not filed, appropriate orders would follow.

The petitions have been filed by Shakir Shabir, Swastik Singh, David Devadas, CPI(M) leader Muhammad Yousuf Tarigami, Air Vice Marshal Kapil Kak, and others.

The petition filed by Kak and others, including Sumantra Bose, whose two books have been forfeited, author Radha Kumar, and former Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah, has invoked Section 99 of the BNSS to set aside the order of forfeiture.

The petitioners contend that merely quoting statutory provisions without detailing specific grounds is insufficient and that the notification fails to distinguish between the government’s “opinion” and the “grounds” for that opinion, which must be evident in the order itself.

The pleas underscore that the ban order contains mere broad statements, without elaborating on how the contents of the books impact national security or honest narratives.

According to the pleas, the forfeiture order did not detail how the 25 books were identified as secessionist.

The petitioners seek to quash the notification dated August 5, 2025, issued by the Home Department of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir that declared the 25 listed books as forfeited.

The books include political commentaries and historical accounts like The Kashmir Dispute 1947-2012 by noted constitutional expert A G Noorani; Kashmir at the Crossroads and Contested Lands by Sumantra Bose; In Search of a Future: The Kashmir Story by David Devadas; Arundhati Roy’s Azadi; and A Dismantled State: The Untold Story of Kashmir After Article 370 by journalist Anuradha Bhasin.

The post Forfeiture of 25 books: High Court grants Govt more time for objections to pleas appeared first on Greater Kashmir.