Sr. No.12 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 2329/2025 CAV No. 1553/2025 c/w WP(C) No. 1882/2025 Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and another …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG Mr. S.S. Nanda, Sr. AAG Mr. F.A. Natnoo, Advocate V/s Abhishek Khajuria and others. …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aditya Manhas, Advocate Mr. Nigam Mehta, Advocate vice Mr. Raghu Mehta, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICESANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER 01.09.2025(ORAL) Sanjeev Kumar J WP(C) No. 1882/2025 Mr. F.A. Natnoo, learned counsel states that he is not pressing this petition in respect of petitioner Nos. 32 to 70. His statement is taken on record. The aforesaid petitioners are struck off from the array of the petitioners and the writ petition qua them is dismissed as withdrawn. WP(C) Nos. 2329 & 1882 of 2025 1. Impugned in these petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is an order and judgment dated 12.06.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, Jammu [“the Tribunal”] in OA No. 1206/2024 titled “Abhishek Khajuria and others Vs. UT of J&K and WP(C) No. 2329/2025 2 others” and in O.A. No. 1425/2024 titled as “Sumit Bhagat Vs. UT of J&K and others”, whereby, the Tribunal while allowing the petitions of the applicants before it has issued a direction to the petitioners of WP(C) No. 2329/2025 to appoint the applicants before the Tribunal to the post of Panchayat Secretary, strictly in accordance with their merit-cum- preference. 2. The Tribunal has also specified the districts in which the applicants in the OA’s are required to be posted/adjusted. The impugned judgment is challenged on multiple grounds including the ground that the Tribunal was devoid of any material to come to a conclusion with regard to posting of a particular applicant in a particular district by applying the principle of merit- cum-preference. There are other issues raised in the matter, however, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the material on record, we are of the view that the controversy raised in this petition lies in a narrow compass. 3. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the respondents-board applied the principle of ‘merit-cum-preference’ while selecting the candidates for various districts of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. However, when hundreds of selected candidates did not join, the waitlist was operated. While recommending the candidates in the waitlist for their appointment against the vacancies in different districts and applying the principle of merit-cum-preference, the respondents-board did not take into consideration that there were some candidates in the select list allocated different districts who were more meritorious than the waitlist candidates and probably entitled to a better preference. This happened once again when the second waitlist was operated. WP(C) No. 2329/2025 3 4. The manner in which the principle of merit-cum-preference was applied to the advantage of waitlist candidates and to the disadvantage of the candidates more meritorious than them who were appointed pursuant to the initial select list, the applicants felt aggrieved and approached the Tribunal. This is how the two OA’s came to be filed before the Tribunal. 5. As a matter of fact, against the refusal to pass an interim order in OA No. 592/2024, the selectees had approached this Court at Srinagar by way of WP(C) No. 2522/2024 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.11.2024 by directing as under: i. The respondent, Service Selection Board, shall undertaken an exercise to reallocate districts to the petitioners and the candidates appointed from the waitlist, strictly in accordance with the criteria adopted by the Service Selection Board in the present Selection process. ii. The result of this exercise shall be submitted by the Service Selection Board to the Tribunal. iii. It is clarified that any appointment or joining of candidates from the waitlist, if made by the respondents in the interim period, shall be provisional and subject to the final orders of the Tribunal on the merits of the case. iv. Disposed of along with all connected CM(s). 6. It seems that the aforesaid directions were not complied with by the official respondents and the OAs were contested on the merits. Had the official respondents adhere to the interim directions passed on 19.11.2024 in WP(C) No. 2522/2024, the entire controversy would have terminated by now. 7. By that as it may, the reluctance of the official respondents to comply with the directions of this Court has resulted in the appointment of waitlist candidates as well, de horse the directions passed by this Court dated 19.11.2024. 8. Without going much into arguments of the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the principle of ‘merit-cum-preference’ that was applied to the WP(C) No. 2329/2025 4 select list was equally applicable to the waitlists and while applying the same principle, the candidates (originally selected and appointed in different districts) having higher merit than the waitlist candidates were also required to be considered for re-allocation of the districts. This, however, has not happened in the instant case. 9. For the foregoing reasons, these petitions are disposed of by providing as under: (i) That the J&K Service Selection Board shall undertake an exercise to re-allocate the districts to the candidates (applicants in OAs) in the select list and the candidates appointed from the waitlists strictly in accordance with the criteria of merit-cum-preference as was applied by the board to the initial select list. (ii) The exercise shall be completed by the board within period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order is made available to the Board. Needless to say that if, pursuant to the exercise undertaken by the Board in terms of the directions made above, if there is change/re- allocation of the districts, the same shall be done within period of two weeks after the completion of the exercise. 10. Disposed of. (Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 01.09.2025 Rahul Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No