Mahnaz Sharief vs The Union Territory Of Jammu And
2024 Latest Caselaw 2006 j&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Mahnaz Sharief vs The Union Territory Of Jammu And on 4 October, 2024

                                                              Sr. No. 13

              HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                           AT JAMMU

                                               WP(C) No.2368/2024
                                               CM No.5789/2024
                                               Cav Nos.1532/2024 & 1476/2024

Mahnaz Sharief, age 39 years
D/o Mohd. Sharief
R/o Mohalla Kama Khan, Ward No.7 District
Poonch.
                                                  ....Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
                  Through :- Mr. M.K Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with
                             Mr. Gagan Kohli, Advocate.
        V/s

1. The Union Territory of Jammu and
   Kashmir through Principal Secretary
   to Govt., Social Welfare Department,
   Civil Secretaritat, Srinagar.

2. J&K Service Selection Board,
   through its Chairman, Zam Zam
   Hotel, Rambagh, Srinagar.

3. The Secretary,
   Service Selection Board,
   Zam Zam Hotel, Rambagh, Srinagar.
4. Masarat Jabeen,
   D/o Mohd. Azeem Khan,
   R/o Potha Surankote, Poonch.

5. Nazia Arif Chowdhary
   D/o Mohd Arif
   R/o Dargloon Mendhar, Poonch.

6. Parveen Akhter,
   D/o Shabir Ahmed
   R/o Sangla Suronkote, Poonch.
                                                      ....Respondent(s)

                 Through :-   Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG for R-1.
                              Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG for R-2&3.
                              Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Advocate with
                              Mr. Rahil Raja, Advocate for Caveator (respondent
                              No.6).
                              Mr. K.K Pathan, Advocate for Caveator (respondent
                              No.4).
                                   2                            WP(C) No.2368/2024




            HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
CORAM:
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

                                    ORDER

04.10.2024 Cav Nos.1532/2024 & 1476/2024

With the appearance of learned counsel appearing for the caveators,

Caveats stand discharged.

1. By way of instant petition, the petitioner is seeking to quash

judgment/order dated 31.07.2024 passed by the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Jammu Bench, Jammu in TA No.6960/2021 titled 'Mehnaz Sharief

vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and others'. In addition, the petitioner has

also sought quashing of select list issued by respondents-Jammu and Kashmir

Service Selection Board for the posts of Supervisor, Social Welfare

Department, District Cadre, Poonch advertised in terms of advertisement

notice No.6 of 2013 dated 10.05.2013.

2. At the very outset, when this matter was taken up for hearing,

Mr. K.K Pathan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4

stated at the Bar that he has instructions from his client that she has opted not

to join her duties for the post of Supervisor as per the select list issued by the

respondents-Board, to which Mr. M.K Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that the petitioner herein is

figuring at Sr. No.1 in the waiting list and in the event of non-joining by

respondent No.4, the petitioner will got selected automatically if the waiting

list is operated. Their statements are taken on record.

3. In the given circumstances and in view of the statements made by

learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as private respondent No.4,

instead of keeping this petition as pending, we deem it appropriate to dispose

of the same, at its threshold. Accordingly, this petition is, disposed of, with a

direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to operate the waiting list strictly under

the permissible rules having regard to Advertisement Notice No.6 of 2013

dated 10.05.2013. Even otherwise also, since the learned CAT while

dismissing the TA No.6960/2021 vide order impugned has already given

liberty to the respondents to go ahead with the selection process, therefore, the

respondents are under obligation to operate the waiting list.

4. Disposed of as above along with connected application.

                                (       (M.A Chowdhary)         )        (Tashi Rabstan)
                                             Judge                        Chief Justice
           Jammu:
           04.10.2024
           Surinder




                                          Whether the order is speaking?               Yes/No
                                          Whether the order is reportable?             Yes/No