SHAMSHER ALI AND ANR. SUDERSHAN SHARMA, VIKAS RAZDAN vs STATE TH.EDUCATION DEPTT.AND ORS. — SWP/1732/2014
Disposed: Contested--Dismissed for Non Prosecution on 20th November 2024.
CNR: JKHC020009912014
Filing Number
SWP/11413/2014
Filing Date
04-Jul-2014
Registration No
SWP/1732/2014
Registration Date
04-Jul-2014
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
SB SERVICE WRIT PETITIONS ( 100 )
Sub-Category
MATTERS PERTAINING TO CENTRAL GOVT. ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
SERVICE WRIT PETITION (SWP)
Decision Date
20-Nov-2024
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed for Non Prosecution
Last updated 23-May-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SHAMSHER ALI AND ANR. SUDERSHAN SHARMA, VIKAS RAZDAN
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE TH.EDUCATION DEPTT.AND ORS.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
15-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rahul BhartiView PDF
-
15-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rahul BhartiView PDF
Summary The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed both condonation and restoration applications filed by petitioner Raheela Tabassum regarding a writ petition concerning teacher recruitment. The court rejected the plea that a 459-day delay in filing the restoration application should be excused, finding that the petitioner's explanation of recently learning about the dismissal and acting "immediately" was vague and did not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
20-Nov-2024
For Orders After Notice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ma Chowdhary
-
21-Oct-2024
For Orders After Notice
-
05-Jun-2015
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
04-Jul-2014
Case filed
Registration No. SWP/1732/2014
Summary The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed both condonation and restoration applications filed by petitioner Raheela Tabassum regarding a writ petition concerning teacher recruitment. The court rejected the plea that a 459-day delay in filing the restoration application should be excused, finding that the petitioner's explanation of recently learning about the dismissal and acting "immediately" was vague and did not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts