Union Territory Of J And K And Ors vs Abdul Rashid Dar And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 2465 J&K/2

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Union Territory Of J And K And Ors vs Abdul Rashid Dar And Anr on 23 December, 2025

Author: Sanjeev Kumar

Bench: Sanjeev Kumar

                                                        Serial No. 34
                                                       Reg CAUSE LIST


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT SRINAGAR

                                      WP(C) 757/2025
                                      CM(1881/2025)

UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS.                     ...Petitioner(s)


Through:      Mr. M.Younis , AC


                                          Vs.


ABDUL RASHID DAR AND ANR.                              ...Respondent(s)

Through:      Mr. Shabir Ahmad Najar, Advocate with
              Mr. Mir Suhail, Advocate


CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
                                       ORDER

23.12.2025

1. Impugned in this petition filed by the petitioners

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is an

order and judgment dated 14.08.2023, passed by

Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench

[" the Tribunal"] in TA No. 590/2021 titled "Abdul

Rashid Dar Vs. State of J&K & ors.", whereby the

Tribunal has quashed the order of withdrawing the

selection and appointment of respondent No. 1.

2. The impugned judgment is challenged on multiple

grounds.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material on record, we find that in pursuance of an interim direction dated 29.11.2017,

passed by a Single Bench of this Court in SWP No.

2426/2017 which on transfer to the Tribunal was

registered as TA No. 590/2021, the respondent No. 1

was allowed to continue on the post to which he

stood appointed. Ever since Respondent No. 1 is in

service.

4. The respondent No. 2 despite service has not come

present to contest this petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

submit that the respondent No. 2 stood appointed as

teacher in compliance with the judgment passed by

Learned Single Judge in SWP No. 25/2010, and,

therefore, is also in service as on date.

6. In view of the fact that both the contesting parties i.e

respondent No. 1 & 2 have now been appointed as

teachers and are in service of the official respondents

for the last more than 8 years, it would be too late to

adjudicate their selection and appointment on merits

at this stage.

7. This appeal is accordingly disposed of as settled in

the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the

case.

              (SANJAY PARIHAR)            (SANJEEV KUMAR)
                  JUDGE                       JUDGE


SRINAGAR:
 23.12.2025
"S. Nuzhat"