{"id":191195,"date":"2010-02-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010"},"modified":"2017-08-28T01:18:25","modified_gmt":"2017-08-27T19:48:25","slug":"safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Safina Javeed vs State Of J&amp;K. While on 1 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jammu High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Safina Javeed vs State Of J&amp;K. While on 1 February, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n \n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU.            \nSWP  No. 964 OF 2008   \nSafina Javeed\nPetitioners\nState and others\nRespondent  \n!S.KShukla, Advocate \n^Mrs. Neeru Goswami, Dy.AG for R- 1 &amp; 3. Mr. F.A.Natnoo, Advocate for R-2. \n\nMr. Justice Sunil Hali, Judge\nDate: 01.02.2010 \n:J U D G M E N T :\n<\/pre>\n<p>Vide Advertisement notice no.12-PSC of 2006<br \/>\ndated 20.12.2006, respondent no.2 invited<br \/>\napplications from the eligible candidates on a<br \/>\nprescribed form for filling up of various posts of<br \/>\nLecturers in different discipline including 12 posts of<br \/>\nPolitical Science in the Higher Education. The break<br \/>\nup of the posts advertised, is as under:-<br \/>\nOpen merit : 06<br \/>\nRBA : 03<br \/>\nSC : 01<br \/>\nST : 01<br \/>\nSLC : 01<br \/>\nTotal : 12<br \/>\nAdvertisement notification provided two<br \/>\ncategories, one meant for in-service category and<br \/>\nother for the direct recruitment from the open<br \/>\nmarket. The petitioner submitted her application<br \/>\nform for the said post of Lecturer Political Science in<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">2<\/span><br \/>\nthe open market. She along with other eligible<br \/>\ncandidates, was allowed to participate in the<br \/>\nselection process by respondent no.2- Public Service<br \/>\nCommission. The select panel declared by<br \/>\nrespondent no.2 vide its Notification No.PSCDR\/<br \/>\nSec.\/2007 dated 29.08.2007 indicated names of<br \/>\nthree persons, who were selected under RBA<br \/>\ncategory, namely, Muzzafar Ali, Jeewan Lal and<br \/>\nPrem Singh. As a sequel to the selection being<br \/>\nmade, the appointment orders were issued vide<br \/>\nGovt. Order No.230-HE of 2007 dated 18.10.2007.<br \/>\nAll the selected candidates, who were offered<br \/>\nappointments came to be appointed by the<br \/>\nrespondents. One of the selected candidates,<br \/>\nnamely, Sh. Muzaffar Ali who was in the RBA<br \/>\ncategory has resigned from the said post on his<br \/>\nselection to the Kashmir Administrative Service. On<br \/>\nthe resignation of said Muzaffar Ali, State made<br \/>\ntemporary appointment of one Shri Amit Bhalla on<br \/>\nacademic arrangement basis.\n<\/p>\n<p>The grievance of the petitioner is that<br \/>\nrespondents under Rule 57 of the J&amp;K Public Service<br \/>\nCommission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980<br \/>\nhave to prepare the waiting list of the candidates<br \/>\nalong with original recommendations of the selected<br \/>\ncandidates while submitting the same to the<br \/>\nGovernment for issuance of appointment orders.<br \/>\nAccording to the petitioner, she was next in the<br \/>\nmerit, therefore, required to be appointed against<br \/>\nthe said post on account of resignation of one<br \/>\nMuzzaffar Ali. It is also contended that the vacancy<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">3<\/span><br \/>\nhad occurred within the life of the waiting list, which<br \/>\nwas to remain in force for a period of one year and<br \/>\nextendable for another period of six months on the<br \/>\nrecommendations of the Government. The<br \/>\nrespondents did not appoint the petitioner, thus her<br \/>\nright of being considered for appointment to the<br \/>\npost in question, has been violated.<br \/>\nOn the other hand, the stand of the<br \/>\nrespondents is that mere selection does not give any<br \/>\nright of appointment. The petitioner admittedly did<br \/>\nnot make the grade, as such, has no right to be<br \/>\nappointed. It is not in dispute that the respondents<br \/>\ndid not prepare any waiting list. However, what is<br \/>\nbeing contended is that even if the waiting list was<br \/>\nprepared even then the petitioner has no right to be<br \/>\nappointed against the post which has been filled up.<br \/>\nResignation of the candidate resulted into vacancy<br \/>\nwhich was required to be filled up by taking recourse<br \/>\nto fresh advertisement. It is only in case where<br \/>\ncandidate selected does not join, the panel remains<br \/>\nin operation. Once the panel of the select list is<br \/>\nexhausted by issuing of such appointment orders<br \/>\nand consequently on their joining the panel is<br \/>\nexhausted.\n<\/p>\n<p>I have heard learned counsel for the parties<br \/>\nand perused the record.\n<\/p>\n<p>It may be important to mention here that<br \/>\nrespondent no.2 was directed by this Court to<br \/>\nsubmit the merit position of the petitioner.<br \/>\nAccording to the merit list disclosed before this<br \/>\ncourt, the petitioner has obtained 49.22 points<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">4<\/span><br \/>\nwhereas cut of merit in RBA category is 49.86<br \/>\npoints, who admittedly could not make the grade in<br \/>\nthe selection process.\n<\/p>\n<p>To examine the contours of the controversy<br \/>\nwhat is being emphasized by the petitioner is that<br \/>\nresignation\/non-joining of the candidate during the<br \/>\nlife of the panel would create an obligation on the<br \/>\nPublic Service Commission and State to make<br \/>\nappointment from the waiting list according to the<br \/>\nmerit. The petitioner has placed reliance on the<br \/>\njudgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case<br \/>\nGhulam Ahmad Malik Vs. State of J&amp;K. While<br \/>\ndealing with the contention of the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the respondents in the aforesaid case, the<br \/>\nDivision Bench of this Court has observed as<br \/>\nunder :-\n<\/p>\n<p>56. We do not agree with Sh. Bakshi for two<br \/>\nreasons:-\n<\/p>\n<p>1. The judgment cited by learned counsel refers to a<br \/>\ncase where the life of a select panel ceases to<br \/>\nexist after the appointment of first person in the<br \/>\nselect panel. The ratio of the judgment cannot be<br \/>\napplied to the facts of present case because it is<br \/>\nadmitted by the parties that life of the select<br \/>\npanel continues to remain in operation for one<br \/>\nyear extendable to another six months on the<br \/>\nrequisition of the State Government; and\n<\/p>\n<p>2. A litigant cannot be compelled to suffer because<br \/>\nof the delay in disposal of his lis. It goes without<br \/>\nsaying that in-action by a judicial authority should<br \/>\nnot prejudice anyone.\n<\/p>\n<p>57. This apart, it has been held in <a href=\"\/doc\/593031\/\">State of U.P. V.<br \/>\nRam Swarup Saroj<\/a> (supra) that a party who<br \/>\napproaches the Court within the life of the waiting list<br \/>\ncannot be deprived of his right to seek operation of<br \/>\nthe waiting list because of non-consideration of his<br \/>\ncase within the validity period of the waiting list.\n<\/p>\n<p>58. We, thus, hold that all those vacancies, which<br \/>\nhave fallen vacant because of the non-joining, death<br \/>\nor resignation of the appointees within a period of<br \/>\none year from the date of the recommendation by the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">5<\/span><br \/>\nPublic Service Commission for appointment, shall<br \/>\nbecome available to the candidates in the waiting list<br \/>\nin the order of merit against their respective<br \/>\ncategories.<br \/>\nThe Division Bench while examining the import<br \/>\nof the Apex Courts judgment titled as <a href=\"\/doc\/1392293\/\">State of<br \/>\nPunjab V. Raghbir Chand Sharma and<\/a> another<br \/>\nreported in AIR 2001 SC 2900 distinguish the<br \/>\njudgment on an issue that the matter before the<br \/>\nApex Court was that life of the select list had ceased<br \/>\nto exist after the appointment of first person in the<br \/>\nselect panel. The judgment relied upon by the<br \/>\nrespondents in State of Punjab Vs. Raghbir Chand<br \/>\nSharma and another postulates that the select list<br \/>\nwas prepared only for one post and panel ceased to<br \/>\nexist and had outlived its utility and no one else in<br \/>\nthe panel could legitimately contend that he should<br \/>\nhave been offered appointment either in the vacancy<br \/>\narising on account of the subsequent resignation of<br \/>\nthe person appointed from the panel or any other<br \/>\nvacancy arising subsequently. The following are the<br \/>\nobservations made by the Apex Court in the<br \/>\naforesaid judgment:-\n<\/p>\n<p>With the appointment of the first<br \/>\ncandidate for the only post in respect of which<br \/>\nthe select panel was prepared, the panel<br \/>\nceased to exist and has outlived its utility and<br \/>\nno one else in the panel can legitimately<br \/>\ncontend that he should have been offered<br \/>\nappointment either in the vacancy arising on<br \/>\naccount of the subsequent resignation of the<br \/>\nperson appointed from the panel or any other<br \/>\nvacancies arising subsequently. The circular<br \/>\norder dated 22.03.1957, relates to select<br \/>\npanels prepared by the PSC and not a panel<br \/>\nof the nature under consideration herein. That<br \/>\napart, even as per the said circular, no claim<br \/>\ncan be asserted and countenanced for<br \/>\nappointment after the expiry of six months.<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">6<\/span><br \/>\nThe import of the judgment of the Apex Court<br \/>\nrefers to a panel prepared by the State Government<br \/>\nwho invited applications for making appointment to<br \/>\nthe post of Assistant Advocate General. It further<br \/>\ncontemplates that circular relied upon by the<br \/>\npetitioners in the said case was to remain in force<br \/>\nfor a period of six months and not beyond that. The<br \/>\nimportant observation made by the Apex Court is<br \/>\nthat the circular relied upon by the writ petitioners<br \/>\nrelates to the panels prepared by the PSC and not<br \/>\nthe panel prepared by the State.\n<\/p>\n<p>The import of the aforementioned judgment is<br \/>\nthat selection process of the Assistant Advocate<br \/>\nGeneral was initiated by the State Government and<br \/>\nnot by the PSC, which provided that a panel has to<br \/>\nremain in force for a period of six months. In the<br \/>\ncase in hand, selection process has been initiated by<br \/>\nthe PSC and the Rule 57 clearly contemplates that<br \/>\nthe select list prepared was to remain in force for a<br \/>\nperiod of one year from the date it is communicated<br \/>\nto the Government. The validity period of one year<br \/>\ncan, however, be extended for a further period of six<br \/>\nmonths on specific request of the Government if the<br \/>\nrequest of such extension is made before the expiry<br \/>\nof the validity of the panel. Rule further provides<br \/>\nthat the waiting list of the candidates may be drawn<br \/>\nup by the Commission and communicated to the<br \/>\nGovernment, along with the original<br \/>\nrecommendations, to the extent to be determined<br \/>\nby the Commission in each case.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">7<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The aforesaid rule clearly envisages two<br \/>\nsituations, one that select list has to be prepared<br \/>\nalong with waiting list which is required to be<br \/>\nsubmitted to the Government; secondly, the<br \/>\nrecommendations of the Commission has to remain<br \/>\nin force for a period of one year, extendable by<br \/>\nfurther period of six months on specific request of<br \/>\nthe Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>The object and purpose of preparing the select<br \/>\nlist along with waiting list is to ensure that no<br \/>\nselection process so initiated is lost on account of<br \/>\nGovernment failure to make appointment on the<br \/>\nbasis of said list. The purpose is to ensure that duly<br \/>\nselection process is brought to its logical conclusion,<br \/>\nfor which life of the panel is provided as one year.<br \/>\nAfter the expiry of the period of one year, panel<br \/>\nceases to exist and fresh recruitment is required to<br \/>\nbe done so as to ensure that process of making<br \/>\nselection does not impede the rights of the person<br \/>\nwho have acquired their eligibility during this period.<br \/>\nContingency may arise during the subsistence of the<br \/>\nlife of panel where candidate may not join or die or<br \/>\nresign after joining leaving the vacancy unfilled.<br \/>\nThere is obligation on the part of the respondents to<br \/>\nmake appointments of the candidates from amongst<br \/>\nthe waiting list on the basis of their merit. The<br \/>\nrespondents are under an obligation under rules to<br \/>\noffer this appointment to the person in the waiting<br \/>\nlist otherwise very purpose of framing Rule 57 would<br \/>\nbe defeated. The select list has to remain in force for<br \/>\na period of one year and object cannot be destroyed<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">8<\/span><br \/>\nwhile refusing to make appointment from within the<br \/>\nwaiting list in case of any contingency as indicated<br \/>\nabove, which may arise. The stand of the<br \/>\nrespondents is that once the appointment is made,<br \/>\nthe panel gets exhausted, cannot be accepted as<br \/>\nthere is no such contingency provided under the<br \/>\nrules that select list can be operated only in case of<br \/>\nnon-joining of the candidate and not in the event of<br \/>\ndeath or resignation.\n<\/p>\n<p>In view of the above, while concurring with a<br \/>\nview taken by the Division Bench of this Court, I<br \/>\nallow this writ petition and direct the respondent-<br \/>\nPSC to recommend the name of the petitioner to<br \/>\nrespondent no.1 for appointment as Lecturer in<br \/>\nPolitical Science against the post fallen vacant due<br \/>\nto the resignation of one Muzaffar Ali provided she is<br \/>\nnext in the merit, within one month who shall<br \/>\nconsider the same and pass appropriate orders<br \/>\nwithin one month thereafter.\n<\/p>\n<p>Disposed of along with connected CMP(s), if<br \/>\nany.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Sunil Hali)<br \/>\nJudge<br \/>\nJammu<br \/>\n01.02.2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>Madan <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jammu High Court Safina Javeed vs State Of J&amp;K. While on 1 February, 2010 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. SWP No. 964 OF 2008 Safina Javeed Petitioners State and others Respondent !S.KShukla, Advocate ^Mrs. Neeru Goswami, Dy.AG for R- 1 &amp; 3. Mr. F.A.Natnoo, Advocate for R-2. Mr. Justice Sunil Hali, Judge [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-191195","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jammu-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Safina Javeed vs State Of J&amp;K. While on 1 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Safina Javeed vs State Of J&amp;K. While on 1 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-27T19:48:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Safina Javeed vs State Of J&amp;K. While on 1 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-27T19:48:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1913,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jammu High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Safina Javeed vs State Of J&amp;K. While on 1 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-27T19:48:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Safina Javeed vs State Of J&amp;K. While on 1 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Safina Javeed vs State Of J&amp;K. While on 1 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Safina Javeed vs State Of J&amp;K. While on 1 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-27T19:48:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Safina Javeed vs State Of J&amp;K. While on 1 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-27T19:48:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010"},"wordCount":1913,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jammu High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010","name":"Safina Javeed vs State Of J&amp;K. While on 1 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-27T19:48:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safina-javeed-vs-state-of-jk-while-on-1-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Safina Javeed vs State Of J&amp;K. While on 1 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191195","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=191195"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191195\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191195"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191195"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191195"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}