Serial No. 35 Supp. Cause list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 1270/2025 Firdous Ahmad Ganai ….. Appellant/petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. Aswad Attar, Advocate V/s UT of J&K and Ors. ….. Respondent(s) Through: - Mr. Mohammad Younis, Advocate vice Mr. A. R. Malik, Sr. AAG for R1-3 Mr. Shah Aamir, Advocate for R4 CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE (ORDER) 31.05.2025 (Oral) CM No. 3442/2025 This is an application, seeking leave of this Court to file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to throw limited challenge to an order and Judgment dated 06.02.2025, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar [“the Tribunal”] in TA No. 1028/2021 and OA No. 275/2023. Since the petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and, therefore, no formal leave to file a petition is required. The CM, therefore, being unnecessary is dismissed. WP(C) No. 1270/2025 01. The short grievance that is projected by the petitioner before us is that the finding of the Tribunal returned in Paragraph 42(ii) of the Judgment, i.e., Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document “perusal of these records very clearly shows that rest of the applicants, except applicant No. 8, 9 and 13 have either submitted their application/representation or their names have been recommended hence change of Wing for these applicants cannot be construed to have been done in ‘Public Interest’”. There is a similar observation made in Paragraph 44, wherein, in respect of applicants Amit Sharma, Manoj Kumar and Ghulam Gous Saqlain, it has been stated that the record does not reflect whether their change of Wing had been done on their request or on the recommendation. 02. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that feeling aggrieved by the final seniority list of Assistant Engineers of R&B Wing, petitioner had preferred OA before the Tribunal, which was disposed of by the Tribunal with a direction to respondents to consider his representation and pass appropriate orders. It is submitted that in compliance with the directions issued by the Tribunal, the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected. 03. Learned counsel for the official respondents submits that the representation of the petitioner was rejected on 12.04.2023. 04. Be that as it may, the grievance of the petitioner as projected before us is that in case he chooses to challenge the rejection of his representation and his position in the final seniority list of Assistant Engineers of R&B Wing, the observations aforementioned will come in his way for he too was shifted from Hydraulic Wing to R&B Wing on the recommendation of the Chief Engineer. 05. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the Judgment impugned in this petition is not in any manner adverse to the claim Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document of the petitioner and the impugned observation has been made in respect of parties before the Tribunal. However, with a view to remove ambiguity, we provide that in case the petitioner decides to challenge the rejection of his representation and takes appropriate remedy with regard to final seniority list in accordance with law, the observation which we have taken note of hereinabove, shall not come in his way and the matter shall be considered by the competent forum/Court on its merits. 06. With the aforesaid clarification, this petition is disposed of along with all connected CM(s). (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR 31.05.2025 “Mohammad Yasin Dar” Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document