SWP No. 693/2017 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU SWP No. 693/2017 Date of pronouncement : 29.04.2026 Uploaded on : 07.05.2026 Mohinder Singh …..Petitioner Through:- Mr. Z. A. Mughal, Advocate. V/s J&K State Road Transport Corporation …..Respondents Through:- Ms. Saniya Heer, Advocate vice Mr. Vinayak Phull, Advocate for R-1 & 2. \ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE ORDER 01. Heard Mr. Z. A. Mughal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 02. The petitioner joined the employment of the Jammu & Kashmir State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as, “the JKSTRC”) as a Cleaner way back in May, 1981 to which post he came to be regularized Serial No. 08 Regular List SWP No. 693/2017 and on that basis even said to have been promoted as Junior Assistant in November, 1985. 03. Admittedly, the petitioner at the time of his entering into employment of JKSRTC was not a matriculate. 04. The petitioner came to approach this Court with the writ petition-SWP No. 855/2012 on the purported cause of action that as a Junior Assistant he was not being considered for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant on account of qualification deficiency, whereas similarly situated Junior Assistants with qualification deficit had been promoted as Senior Assistant/s in JKSTRC. In this writ petition-SWP No. 855/2012, an interim direction came to be passed unto the writ-respondents to accord consideration to the case of the petitioner on the analogy of similarly placed persons. 05. During the pendency of said writ petition-SWP No. 855/2012, the petitioner is said to have come to be promoted as Senior Assistant by virtue of an order No. 118- JKSRTC of 2015 dated 03.01.2015. 06. The petitioner reckoned that his promotion as Senior Assistant in JKSTRC ought to have accrued to him SWP No. 693/2017 w.e.f. 04.09.2010, the date from which his juniors had come to be promoted as such. 07. With this grievance of being accorded a delayed promotion as Senior Assistant, the petitioner came forward with writ petition-SWP No. 711/2015, thereby seeking the benefit of retrospective promotion w.e.f. 04.09.2010 and in that regard the petitioner had named two private respondents, namely, Ram Singh and Mohammad Rafiq Zargar. 08. By reference to the direction given by this Court in petitioner’s writ petition-SWP No. 711/2015 in terms of order dated 09.03.2015, the General Manger (Adm.), JKSTRC came to pass an order No. 11-GMA of 2015 dated 04.06.2015 stating therein that Ram Singh and Mohammad Rafiq Zargar, by reference to whom the petitioner was drawing claim of party treatment, were matriculates, whereas the petitioner was an under matric and, thus, not eligible for the post of Senior Assistant as per the qualification prescribed in the Recruitment Rules of 1986 applicable to JKSTRC. 09. The petitioner is said to have remained uninformed of order No. 11-GMA of 2015 dated 04.06.2015 SWP No. 693/2017 only to come to know about it in the month of November, 2016, when he came to be provided with order No. JKSRTC/EC-III/1114 dated 27.09.2016 passed by the In- Charge (Administration), JKSTRC, Srinagar. 10. It is by purported reference to order No. JKSRTC/EC-III/1114 dated 27.09.2016 that the petitioner came forward with a cause of action in the present writ petition filed on 20.03.2017. 11. It is in the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ petition of Certiorari and Mandamus by calling in question the order No. 11-GMA of 2015 dated 04.06.2015 and order No. JKSRTC/EC-III/1114 dated 27.09.2016. 12. Interestingly, in the present writ petition, Ram Singh and Mohammad Rafiq Zargar are being repeated as respondents, whereas in impugned order No. JKSRTC/EC- III/1114 dated 27.09.2016 passed by purported reference to direction in writ petition-SWP No. 1131/2015, the private respondents by reference to whom the petitioner was seeking purported parity were Abdul Hamid and Hafiz Ahmad, both matric-in-qualification and Junior Assistants SWP No. 693/2017 w.e.f. December, 1983 as against petitioner’s engagement as Junior Assistant in November, 1985. 13. The petitioner was least aware of the fact that his first writ petition-SWP No. 855/2012 was pending alongside his present writ petition and it is only today when this Court has referred to this High Court’s Kiosk that it has come to known that in terms of an order dated 26.11.2024, said writ petition-SWP No. 855/2012 has been dismissed for non- prosecution. 14. This Court is convinced that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and for that the reasons are obvious. The petitioner has not chosen to annex the copy of writ petition-SWP No. 1131/2015 by reference to which the impugned order No. JKSRTC/EC-III/1114 dated 27.09.2016 has come into being. The petitioner has not annexed copy of writ petition-SWP No. 855/2012 which came to suffer dismissal for non-prosecution in terms of order dated 26.11.2024. Petitioner has also not annexed order of the writ petition-SWP No. 711/2015. 15. All the writ petitions above referred are sequel to the present petition and, therefore, it ought to have occurred to the petitioner that he was supposed to place on record the SWP No. 693/2017 said three writ petitions as annexures for enabling this Court to have an overview of the situation as to whether the petitioner is indulging in a case of old wine in new bottle or not or was actually coming up with a fresh cause of action to come up with fourth writ petition in succession bearing the same grievance of being ignored in terms of his promotion vis-à-vis his juniors. 16. In the light of the aforesaid lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner, this Court is not meant to be engaged by a litigant for the sake of leisure litigation and earn the premium out of that venture. 17. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed along with connected application. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU 29.04.2026 Bunty Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Bunty Kumar 2026.05.07 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document