Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Firdous Ahmad Ganai vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 31 May, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
Serial No. 35
Supp. Cause list
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No. 1270/2025
Firdous Ahmad Ganai
..... Appellant/petitioner(s)
Through: -
Mr. Aswad Attar, Advocate
V/s
UT of J&K and Ors.
..... Respondent(s)
Through: -
Mr. Mohammad Younis, Advocate vice Mr. A. R. Malik, Sr. AAG for R1-3
Mr. Shah Aamir, Advocate for R4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
(ORDER)
31.05.2025
(Oral)
This is an application, seeking leave of this Court to file a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to throw limited challenge to
an order and Judgment dated 06.02.2025, passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar ["the Tribunal"] in TA No. 1028/2021 and
OA No. 275/2023. Since the petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution and, therefore, no formal leave to file a petition is required. The
CM, therefore, being unnecessary is dismissed.
01. The short grievance that is projected by the petitioner before us is that
the finding of the Tribunal returned in Paragraph 42(ii) of the Judgment, i.e.,
"perusal of these records very clearly shows that rest of the applicants,
except applicant No. 8, 9 and 13 have either submitted their
application/representation or their names have been recommended hence
change of Wing for these applicants cannot be construed to have been done
in 'Public Interest'". There is a similar observation made in Paragraph 44,
wherein, in respect of applicants Amit Sharma, Manoj Kumar and Ghulam
Gous Saqlain, it has been stated that the record does not reflect whether their
change of Wing had been done on their request or on the recommendation.
02. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that feeling
aggrieved by the final seniority list of Assistant Engineers of R&B Wing,
petitioner had preferred OA before the Tribunal, which was disposed of by
the Tribunal with a direction to respondents to consider his representation
and pass appropriate orders. It is submitted that in compliance with the
directions issued by the Tribunal, the representation made by the petitioner
has been rejected.
03. Learned counsel for the official respondents submits that the
representation of the petitioner was rejected on 12.04.2023.
04. Be that as it may, the grievance of the petitioner as projected before us
is that in case he chooses to challenge the rejection of his representation and
his position in the final seniority list of Assistant Engineers of R&B Wing,
the observations aforementioned will come in his way for he too was shifted
from Hydraulic Wing to R&B Wing on the recommendation of the Chief
Engineer.
05. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the
Judgment impugned in this petition is not in any manner adverse to the claim
of the petitioner and the impugned observation has been made in respect of
parties before the Tribunal. However, with a view to remove ambiguity, we
provide that in case the petitioner decides to challenge the rejection of his
representation and takes appropriate remedy with regard to final seniority
list in accordance with law, the observation which we have taken note of
hereinabove, shall not come in his way and the matter shall be considered by
the competent forum/Court on its merits.
06. With the aforesaid clarification, this petition is disposed of along with
all connected CM(s).
(SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR
31.05.2025
"Mohammad Yasin Dar"
