Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12663 (JK)

UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (SCHOOL EDUCATION) v. ABDUL RASHID DAR AND ANR.

WP(C)/757/2025 · 2025-12-23

Sanjay Parihar, Sanjeev Kumar

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

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”