SAPNA DEVI AND ANOTHER vs SHEETAL AND OTHERS — RP/18/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1A. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 23rd April 2026.
CNR: JKHC020014152026
Filing Number
RP/1037/2026
Filing Date
17-Mar-2026
Registration No
RP/18/2026
Registration Date
25-Mar-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sindhu Sharma , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shahzad Azeem
Coram
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sindhu Sharma , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shahzad Azeem
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
DB REVIEW PETITION RP ( 218 )
Sub-Category
IN SWP ( 2 )
Judicial Branch
SERVICE WRIT PETITION (SWP)
Decision Date
23-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Last updated 30-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SAPNA DEVI AND ANOTHER
Adv. ABHIMANYU SHARMA
Respondent(s)
-
1.SHEETAL AND OTHERS
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
23-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sindhu Sharma,hon'ble Mr. Justice Shahzad AzeemView PDF
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed the review petition filed by Sapna Devi and Arshad Bano against a recruitment selection for Knitting Instructor positions, holding that the petitioners sought impermissible re-appreciation of evidence rather than correction of patent errors. The court found that the petitioners' qualifications did not match the prescribed requirements and that all substantive and legal arguments had been adequately addressed in the original judgment, making the review petition unmaintainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
15-Apr-2026
For Orders Before Notice
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sindhu Sharma , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shahzad Azeem
-
01-Apr-2026
For Orders Before Notice
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sindhu Sharma , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shahzad Azeem
-
30-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. RP/18/2026
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed the review petition filed by Sapna Devi and Arshad Bano against a recruitment selection for Knitting Instructor positions, holding that the petitioners sought impermissible re-appreciation of evidence rather than correction of patent errors. The court found that the petitioners' qualifications did not match the prescribed requirements and that all substantive and legal arguments had been adequately addressed in the original judgment, making the review petition unmaintainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts