HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 2480/2021 UT of J&K and another .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG v/s Janak Sharma and others .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Pranav Kohli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Farhan Mirza, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER 04.08.2025 1. Impugned in this petition, filed by the Union Territory of J&K, is an order and judgment dated 04.03.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, Jammu [“the Tribunal”] in TA No. 61/43/2020, titled “Janak Sharma and others v. UT of J&K and others”, whereby the Tribunal has, while allowing TA and quashing the Government Order No. 454-PW (Hyd) of 2020 dated 31.01.2020, directed the petitioners herein to consider whether the respondents are eligible to be considered for the posts in question. 2. The dispute which was subject matter of adjudication before the Tribunal appears to be with regard to the applicability of SRO-14 and providing of preference to the extent of 10% of the posts of Assistant Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer to the candidates possessing Post-Graduate qualification in Engineering (M. Tech). 3. During the course of arguments, it was brought to our notice that a similar judgment passed in OA No. 54 of 2022, titled “Muzamil Ahmad Rafique v. Union Territory of J&K”, dated 12.03.2024, has not only attained finality, Sr. No. 20 2 but has been implemented by the petitioners by assigning the charge of Executive Engineer to Mr. Muzamil Ahmad Rafique, by giving the benefit of SRO-14 of 2016. 4. It is not disputed before us that case of the respondents is similar and identical to the case of Muzamil Ahmad Rafique, and if that may be the position, the respondents herein cannot be given a differential treatment, nor the petitioners can be permitted to pick and choose the candidates for the purpose of complying with the orders of competent Court of law. The judgment passed by the Tribunal in favour of the respondents also deserves to be complied with on the analogy of Muzamil Ahmad Rafique. 5. In that view of the matter, we find no justification to interfere with the judgment impugned passed by the Tribunal. 6. This petition is accordingly dismissed. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JAMMU 04.08.2025 Vishal Khajuria