Serial No. 23 REGULAR LIST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 3107/2023 MEHAK ALI MAKROO …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Bhat Fayaz, Advocate with Ms. Nighat Amin, Advocate Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Ab. Rashid Malik, Sr. AAG with Mr. Mohd Younis Hafiz, Assisting Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE ORDE R 29.04.2025 Per Sanjeev Kumar-J (Oral): 1. Impugned in this petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an order and judgment dated 3rd October, 2023, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar, [“the Tribunal”] in OA No. 39/2023, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA filed by the petitioner. 2. Briefly put the relevant facts leading to the filing of this petition as could be covered from the impugned order and judgment are that the petitioner herein applied to the Jammu & Kashmir Service Selection Board (SSB) for the post of Class IV employee. 3. In response to advertisement notification dated 26th June, 2020. In terms of aforesaid notification in as many 8575 of Class IV employees pertaining to various departments were notified to be filled up under Special Recruitment Drive conducted in terms of Jammu & Kashmir Appointment of Class IV (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2020. 4. The petitioner is a disabled person (deaf and dumb) with 100% disabled. The petitioner secured 29.54 points in the selection and, therefore, was entitled to be selected and appointed as Class IV Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 02.05.2025 employee with the respondents despite higher merit possessed by the petitioner, she was not included in the select list. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of OA No. 39/2023 and sought a direction to the respondents for quashing the selection of the candidates who were lower in merit than the petitioner she also prayed for a direction to the respondents to include her name in the select list of the category of physically challenged persons on the basis of her merit obtained in the selection. 6. On the OA coming up for consideration, the Tribunal while issuing notice to the respondents also directed that one post in the category of (deaf and dumb) for Class IV shall not----- up the OA was contested by the respondents. The merit of the petitioner i.e. 29.054 points in her Home District was not disputed. The respondents fairly admitted that the petitioner had --- chance of getted selected but could not be placed in the select list for the reason that she did not present herself during verification of the documents. The OA was consider in the light of the rival contentions and the material on merit and came to the conclusion that by presenting herself during verification, the petitioner has missed bus and, therefore, no relief could be granted to her on this ground the OA came to be dismissed in terms of judgment and order impugned in this petition. 7. Before we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to take note off that this Court vide its order dated 01.12.2023, while issuing notice to the respondents to file objections also provided that one post be kept reserved if not already filled up. 8. The impugned order and judgment of the Tribunal has assailed by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the Tribunal has not appreciated the fact that it was disability of the petitioner which prevented her to remain present during the process of verification. 9. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not more meritorious than the candidates selected and appointed. The petitioner did not Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 02.05.2025 possess the requisite documents with regard to her eligibility to hold the post. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not approached the case from a right perspective indisputably the petitioner is disable person from 100% disability (deaf and dumb), this is so certified by the Board of Doctors. It is also not in dispute that petitioner is more meritorious than the respondents No. 4 & 5 and, therefore, had a better right of appointment as Class IV. True it is that dispute a notice of official website of the Board, calling upon the candidates to come forward for verification of the documents, the petitioner could not herself on the due date. It is not the case of the SSB that on the part from putting the information on the official website, there was any other notification or intimdation given to the petitioner and other candidates in person. 11. In that view of the matter and particularly keeping in view disability, the petitioner was suffering thre was possibility of the petitioner escaping the notice on the official website, however, when the provisional select list was issued, the petitioner did approach the respondent and had a requisite documents of eligibility in her possession. The SSB ought to have taken promogatic view in the matter and included the name of the petitioner in the select list more particularly when she is more meritiours than the respondents No. 4 & 5 and was in possession of the requisite documents. The Tribunal has miserably failed to appreciate this aspect of matter and has relied more technicalities thant equity in deciding the matter. 12. For the forgoing reasons, we find merit in this petition and the same order of the Tribunal is set aside and the respondents are directed to immediately... forthwith ... against Class IV in the District of Srinagar against in any available vacancy. 13. We make it clear that recommendation from the Board shall be required to appoint the petitioner as Class IV. Let needful be done and appropriate order of appointment be issued within a period of four weeks. The appointment of the petitioner be made within Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 02.05.2025 aforesaid period shall be ... in nature. This matter has been in the peculiar facts and circumstances and shall not side and .. in future. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 29.04.2025 “ARIF” Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 02.05.2025