Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR versus DR. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS.

Decided
11 January 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 375 · 1996 INSC 51
Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Though the respondents have been served, no one is appearing either in person or through counsel.

p. 375, margin F

Leave granted.

p. 375, margin G

The learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition on the ground that the lecturers were appointed on regular basis and satisfied the qualifications prescribed in J & K Medical Education (Gazetted) Services Recruittoent Rules, 1979 and were appointed to time bound promotion by virtue of Government order No. 517-HME of 1987 dated 19.10.1987. The said order indicates that excluding the time during which they had worked against ad hoc appointment, if they had completed 7 years as on March 31, 1987, they would be designated on time bound promotional scheme as Assistant Professors in the scale of Rs. 2350-4050 w.e.f. 1.4.1987. The respondents had not completed 7 years' regular service as on that date. Yet learned single Judge had given the benefit of the above G.O. There was a delay of about 3 months in filing the appeal to the Division Be0ch. The Division Bench of the High Court was not inclined to condone the delay on the ground that proper explanation had not been given. We have considered the reasoning of the learned judges. On the facts and circumstances, we think that the explanation given for the delay in filing the appeal is proper. It is notorious and court would take judicial notice that no one would take responsibility for the delay and in the process of leisurely consultations between different departments or at different levels in the same department the limitation to file the appeal gets barred. Refusal to condone the delay feeds public injustice and a premium for lethargy and encourages mischief. Applying the pragmatic approach, the explanation for the delay needs to be considered and the cause of justice advanced and consideration angulated and accordingly, considered from that perspective the delay gets condoned. The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits according to law.

pp. 375–376, margin G

The appeal is allowed. No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.

p. 376, margin E