Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10470 (JK)

UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (GENERAL ADMINISTRATION / SSRB) v. MEHRAJ AHMAD SHAH

WP(C)/2652/2025 · 2025-10-29

Sanjay Parihar, Sanjeev Kumar

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Serial No.41 SUPPL. CAUSE LIST-I IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 2652/2025 CM(7024/2025) Union Territory of J&K and Ors. …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Abdul Rashid Malik, Sr. AAG with Mr. Mohd Younis Hafiz, Assisting Counsel Vs. Mehraj Ahmad Shah ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Adnan Fayaz, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER 29.10.2025 1. Impugned in this petition is an order and judgment dated 27th August, 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Srinagar Bench [“the Tribunal”] in OA No. 970/2025, titled “Mehraj Ahmad Shah Vs. Union Territory of J&K and Ors.”, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application (OA) on the motion hearing stage and directed the petitioners herein to permit the applicant therein to participate in the examination for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) notified vide Advertisement Notification No. 03/2025, dated 24th April, 2025. MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 29.10.25 2. The impugned order is challenged primarily on the ground that the Original Application (OA) was allowed at the motion hearing stage without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot sustain as the same is in sheer violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. The petitioners, though present before the Tribunal at the motion hearing stage, were not granted even a day’s time to file their response before taking up the matter for final consideration. Without going into the merits of the case, we are inclined to allow this petition and set aside the judgment dated 27th August, 2025 passed by the Tribunal. Ordered accordingly. 5. Consequently, the Tribunal is directed to hear OA No. 970/2025 afresh and pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to both sides. 6. Let the parties appear before the Tribunal on 11th November, 2025. 7. The petitioners herein shall, in the meanwhile, file their objections to the Original Application (OA) and the same shall be taken up for consideration by the Tribunal on the next date of hearing. MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 29.10.25 8. In the meanwhile, till the matter is considered by the Tribunal, the respondent shall be permitted to sit in the examination at his own risk and responsibility and subject to the orders that may be passed by the Tribunal after hearing both the parties. The result of the respondent shall not be declared until ordered otherwise by the Tribunal. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 29.10.2025 “Mir Arif” (i) Whether the order is reportable? Yes/ No. (ii) Whether the order is speaking? Yes/ No. MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 29.10.25