| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2007 SLG 2988 2007 SLD 2988 2007 PLJ 57 |
High Court (AJ&K)
Writ Petition No. 223 of 2007, decided on 8.8.2007. DATE of hearing: 11.6.2007
RAFIULLAH SULTANI, J.
Syed Shahid Bahar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Muhammad Adress Mughal, Advocate for
Respondents
Writ Petition No. 223 of 2007, decided on 8.8.2007. DATE of hearing: 11.6.2007
RAFIULLAH SULTANI, J.
Syed Shahid Bahar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Muhammad Adress Mughal, Advocate for
Respondents
NOSHEEN HAMEED
VS
BANK OF AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR MUZAFFARABAD through its Managing Director, and 3 others--Respondents
Law:
Section:
Principle of Law-- ----No one can be punished for an act of the executive, judicial or quasi judicial authority. [P. 61] B Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974-- ----S. 44--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2--Constitutional petition--Application for injunction--Status quo--Three ingredients of injunction--(i) Prima facie case, (ii) Balance of convenience, (iii) Irreparable loss--All three ingredients of injunction were in favour of the petitioner/applicant--Bank of Kashmir advertised various posts of Grade III Officers and applications were invited from the qualified candidates--Appointments for the posts of Grade III Officers written test had been conducted by the bank--Petitioner not only qualified the written test but also stood in position--Non-petitioners, instead of holding interim of the candidates, who had qualified the written test and make appointment decided to conduct fresh written test and a letter was written to the petitioner among others to appear for fresh written test--Version of the non-petitioners that the fresh written test was conducted by the bank to judge the ability of the candidates and it was necessary for appointment--Firstly, such condition was not available in advertisement published by the bank--Secondly, if re-written test was for judging the ability of the candidates then what was the purpose of written test had been conducted by the bank--Bank was conducting fresh written test only to the extent of 7 candidates out of 451 candidates--If first written test had not been conducted properly by the bank, then it was the fault of the bank, not fault of the petitioner--After conducting the written test and announcing the result of the candidates, now the bank executives want to conduct fresh written test--It was against the principle of Justice and law to conduct fresh written test from only 7 candidates--Held: "Court may, in a fit case, grant interim injunction, even if the case does not fall with in the four corners of the well settled principles for grant of injunctions u/Order 39, Rules 1 & 2, if the facts of the case so demand to foster the cause of justice"--All three ingredients of…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492