THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE vs SAGHIR AHMAD — C.A. No. 5017 - 5019/2012
Case under Section III-A. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010240142008
Filing Date
21-Aug-2008
Registration No
C.A. No. 5017 - 5019/2012
Diary Number
24014/2008
Order Date
02-May-2019
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 05-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
Adv. M. R. SHAMSHAD (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [P-1]
Respondent(s)
-
1.SAGHIR AHMAD
Adv. BHARAT SANGAL (Dead / Retired / Elevated) BHARAT SANGAL (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-3] [Pr] BHARAT SANGAL (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-4] [Pr] SEITA VAIDYALINGAM[R-6] [Pr] BHARAT SANGAL (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-1]
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
02-May-2019
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
02-May-2019
Ordinary
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
-
03-Jul-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Apr-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Feb-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Jan-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
30-Nov-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
31-Oct-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
31-Oct-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
15-Sep-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Aug-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Mar-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
19-Feb-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Jan-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
02-Dec-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Oct-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Feb-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
15-Dec-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Oct-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Aug-2008
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 5017 - 5019/2012
Case Summary: C.A. No. 005017-005019/2012 The Supreme Court dismissed the District Magistrate's appeals challenging a lower court order that upheld appointments of Saghir Ahmad and others to positions of Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Clerk. The Court found the lower court's decision just and equitable given the prolonged litigation the appointees had endured, and declined to interfere with the appointments already made. No interim order had been operating in respondent No. 1's case, and the impugned order prevented further litigation by non-claimants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts