Item No.124 Suppl. List-1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Pronounced on:08.07.2026 Uploaded on: 10 .07.2026 WP(C) No.1557/2026 ABDUL HAMID GUJJAR SHEIKH & ANR. ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Altaf Naik, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Seerat Ishfaq, Advocate. Vs. UT OF J&K & ORS …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) 1) The petitioners, through the medium of present petition, have challenged order bearing No.CEO/B/TBP/ 25/44582 dated 03.01.2025 issued by respondent No. 3, whereby respondent No.4 has been informed that in-situ promotion availed by petitioner No.1 has been kept in abeyance till further orders. The petitioners have also sought a direction upon the respondents not to harass them and not to proceed in the matter relating to verification of their certificates and if at all any verification is to be done, the same should be done in accordance with P a g e | 2 the provisions of the Reservation Act and the rules framed thereunder. The petitioners have sought a direction that service benefits of the petitioner No.1 be released in his favour on the basis of Scheduled Tribe Certificate. 2) Heard and considered. 3) Briefly stated, the facts pleaded in the petition are that petitioner No.1, on the basis of Scheduled Tribe Category Certificate, was appointed as teacher in the Education Department, whereas petitioner No.2 was allotted gas distribution agency on the basis of Scheduled Tribe Category Certificate. It has been submitted that certain complaints came to be filed against the petitioners alleging that the certificates issued in their favour are not genuine. It has been also submitted that a proper enquiry was conducted relating to authenticity of the certificates of the petitioners by the Tehsildar concerned after constituting a committee and it was found that the certificates issued in favour of the petitioners are genuine. 4) It has been submitted that in-situ promotion was granted in favour of petitioner No.1 after completion of 12 years of service. It has further been submitted that some persons, including the private respondents, have filed a complaint against the petitioners with Crime Branch, P a g e | 3 Kashmir, and the petitioners are being unnecessarily called by the Crime Branch, even though the said Agency has no jurisdiction to conduct any verification in the matter. 5) So far as the relief claimed by petitioners to the extent of challenge to communication dated 03.01.2025, whereby in-situ promotion of petitioner No.1 has been kept in abeyance is concerned, the same clearly qualifies to be a “service matter” as defined under Section 2(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Similarly, the action of the employer of petitioner No.1 to get the Scheduled Tribe Certificate of petitioner No.1 verified, as also the prayer regarding release of service benefits in favour of the said petitioner, is also a service matter. The subject matter of the present writ petition, so far as it pertains to petitioner No.1, is, therefore, amenable to jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal. 6) The Supreme Court has, in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 1127, clearly held that it will not be open to litigants to directly approach the High Court in a service matter by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. It is only after the Administrative Tribunal has rendered its decision that a litigant is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution against P a g e | 4 the order/judgment of the Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition to the extent of petitioner No.1 cannot be entertained by this Court. 7) There is yet another aspect of the matter which is required to be noticed. The petitioners have resorted to misjoinder of causes of action. The two petitioners who have invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court are two separate individuals in respect of whom two separate category certificates have been issued, which are the subject matter of verification before the official respondents. So, the cause of action for the petitioners to file the present writ petition is distinct from each other. On this ground also, the writ petition before this Court in the present form is not maintainable. 8) For what has been discussed hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Srinagar, 08.07.2026 “Bhat Altaf-Secretary” Whether the ORDER is reportable: Yes/No