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

COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH AND MEDICAL EDU. DEPTT. CIVIL SECTT., JAMMU versus DR. ASHOK KUMAR KOHLI

Decided
31 October 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.N. KIRPAL (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 623 · 1995 INSC 658

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.

Leave granted.

p. 624, margin A

We have heard the counsel on both sides. We are concerned in this appeal with clause (i) of the order dated May 29, 1995, namely, "the commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Health and Medical Education Department, .lammu shall present himself in the Court on the next date to inform the Court as to why and for what reasons the Court order has not been complied with." with regard to clause (ii) of the order, we are not interfering.

p. 624, margin A

It would appear that Dr. Ashok Kumar Kohli was one of the candidates selected by the Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission and stood at No. 4 in the select list. He was not appointed to the post of lecturer in Opthomology Department of Jammu & Kashmir. He sought a writ of mandamus in W.P. 458/94. Pending disposal of the writ petition, certain directions seems to have been issued by the High Court and for its non-compliance, the above order came to be passed. For his entitlement to be appointed to. the post pursuant to the selection made by the Public Service Commission, Dr. Ashok Kumar Kohli has taken the stand that the select list had not lapsed while the Government's stand is that the list stood lapsed with the expiry of one year. Since the writ petition is pending, we are not expressing any opinion on merits. Suffice it to say that since the -controversy is yet to be decided, perhaps the High Court may not be justified in calling upon the Government to implement the interim direction. In other words, it would amount to over reaching the main relief which ultimately may or may not he passed in the writ petition. The aforesaid directions stanJ set aside an<l the second direction not to 1nakc any appointment to a post of Lecturer in Opthomology Department in any of the medical colleges pending disposal, stands confirmed. The High Court is requested to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. R.P. Appeal disposed of.

p. 624, margin C