WP(C) No. 1164/2026 Item No.106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR (Virtual mode) Uploaded on: 29.05.2026 WP(C) No. 1164/2026 Altaf Hussain Sulamani and others ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. N. A. Malik, Advocate Vs. UT of J&K and others …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (ORAL) 22.05.2026 1. The petitioners through the medium of the present petition have sought a direction upon the respondents to accord them the benefit of judgment dated 14.07.2014 passed in SWP No. 1640/2013 titled Manzoor Ahmad Chopan and others vs. State of J&K and others and to issue formal engagement orders in their favour against the advertised posts of Teachers on the pattern of Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheeme (ReT) in Education Zone Quilmuqam, District Bandipora, on the basis of the selection list prepared by the respondents. 2. Heard and considered 3. As per the case of the petitioners, vide Cabinet Decision No. 169/13/2010 dated 03.08.2010, sanction was accorded for filling up regular vacancies of Teachers in Socially and Educationally Backward areas and in areas near the Line of Actual Control identified under the WP(C) No. 1164/2026 J&K Reservation Rules. Pursuant thereto, the Government issued Order No. 635-Edu of 2010 dated 04.08.2010, whereby sanction was accorded for filling up regular vacancies of Teachers in such areas on the pattern of the Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme for a period of two years in the first instance. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid scheme, respondent No. 4 issued Advertisement Notice bearing ZEOQ/012/SSA/1537-48 dated 12.10.2012, whereby applications were invited from eligible candidates belonging to SC/ST categories having 10+2 and above qualification from the concerned Habitation/Revenue village for filling up of regular vacancies of the Teachers in various schools including BPS Miyan, BPS Chuntiwari, BMS Check Matrigam, GMS Sheikhugam, MS Bilipora, MS Pahilpora, PS Yali, BMS Kelsan, BMS Authwatoo. The petitioners, being eligible in terms of the Advertisement Notice, applied for appointment against the advertised posts of Teachers along with other candidates. 5. It has been submitted that on the basis of merit, the petitioners were empanelled by respondent No. 4 for engagement as ReTs against the aforesaid regular vacancies and the panel was forwarded to respondent No. 3 for approval. According to the petitioners, the respondents delayed issuance of engagement orders in their favour on extraneous considerations with a view to accommodate their favourites. It has further been submitted that despite pursuing the matter before the respondents, no action was taken by them. 6. It has also been submitted that certain other similarly situated candidates filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 1640/2013. The said writ petition WP(C) No. 1164/2026 came to be allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 14.07.2014, whereby the respondents were directed to take the selection process initiated pursuant to Advertisement Notice dated 12.10.2012 to its logical conclusion. Against the said judgment, the respondents preferred a Letters Patent Appeal, which was dismissed by the Division Bench on 25.05.2017 and the order passed by the Writ Court on 14.07.2014 attained finality. According to the petitioners, thereafter they again requested the respondents to issue formal orders of engagement in their favour, but no action has been taken till date, instead the respondents are adopting delaying tactics. 7. A perusal of the assertions made in the writ petition would reveal that yjr Advertisement Notice, pursuant to which the petitioners submitted their candidature, was issued in the year 2012. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been pursuing the matter with the respondents ever since, yet no decision has been taken by the respondents. It is also their case that similarly situated candidates approached this Court by filing SWP No. 1640/2013, which was disposed of on 14.07.2014, and that the LPA filed against the said judgment came to be dismissed in the year 2017. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners did not choose to join the other candidates, who had approached this Court by way of aforesaid writ petition. Instead, they remained satisfied with the alleged inaction of the respondents. The petitioners acted as fence-sitters by awaiting the outcome of the litigation initiated by others. 8. It is not the case of the petitioners that they had submitted any written representation before the respondents during all these years seeking WP(C) No. 1164/2026 redressal of their grievance. Rather, they not only waited for the outcome of the litigation initiated by other candidates but, even after finalization of the litigation in the year 2017, the petitioners continued to remain inactive and choose to approach this Court only in the year 2026. 9. From the aforesaid circumstances, it is evident that the conduct of the petitioners has been highly lethargic and negligent. There is enormous and unexplained delay on their part in approaching this Court. While other similarly situated candidates had approached this Court as early as in the year 2013, the petitioners chose to remain silent spectators. Even after the judgment attained finality in the year 2017, they continued to remain in deep slumber for nine more years. In such circumstances, the petitioners have none but themselves to blame for their fate. They have acquiesced in the action/inaction of the respondents by not diligently pursuing their grievance either before the respondents or before this Court. 10. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition, being barred by delay and laches, deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Jammu 22.05.2026 Karam Chand Whether the Order is speaking: YES/NO Whether the Order is reportable: YES/NO KARAM CHAND 2026.05.29 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document