Serial No. 49 Suppl Cause list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 545/2024 Shabeer Ahmad Dar ….. Appellant/petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. Bhat Fayaz, Advocate V/s UT of J&K and Ors. ….. Respondent(s) Through: - Mr. Mubashir Malik, Dy. AG Mr. Mohammad Younis, Advocate vice Mr. A. R. Malik, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE (ORDER) 16.05.2025 01. Impugned in this petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India is an order and Judgment dated 09.03.2023, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar [“the Tribunal”] in TA No. 274/2021 (SWP No. 1055/2019), whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA filed by the petitioner being devoid of any merit. 02. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. We are of the considered opinion that the Judgment passed by the Tribunal is correct, both on facts and law and, therefore, cannot be interfered by us in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 03. Indisputably, both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4, who had applied for the post of Teacher in District, Baramulla under physically challenged category are suffering from bench mark disability. The merit of Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document the respondent No. 4, is more than the petitioner and, therefore, she came to be selected and appointed as Teacher in the said category. 04. The challenge of the petitioner to the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 is on the ground that the respondent No. 4, does not suffer from the suitable disability, i.e., Locomotive Ortho (OL) and therefore, was ineligible. 05. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, including the disability certificates produced by the petitioner and respondent No. 4 before the Board. The disability certified by the Medical Board in case of both of them is Locomotive and has effect on one leg as well, though the medical authority is not very clear on the exact disability suffered by them. We find that both of them are suffering from same type of disability. 06. Having regard to the fact that respondent No. 4 is more meritorious than the petitioner, we are not inclined to disturb her appointment as Teacher, which was offered to her in the year 2008. No other ground was urged. 07. In view of the aforesaid position, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with all connected CM(s). 08. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the petitioner has missed the job by a whisker, the respondents shall consider the case of petitioner in the next selection process by according him relaxation in age, if required, provided the petitioner applies. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR 16.05.2025 “Mohammad Yasin Dar” Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document