Serial No. 63 SUPPLEMENTARY LIST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 734/2026 CM 1883/2026 Caveat 635/2026 ASIF IQBAL MIR AND OTHERS …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. G.A. Lone, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mujeeb Andrabi, Advocate Vs. UT OF JK & ORS ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG with Ms Maha Majeed, AC Mr. M.Y. Bhat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sajid Ahmad, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDE R 15.04.2026 Caveat No. 635/2026 1. With the appearance of the learned counsel for the caveators, the caveat stands discharged. WP(C) No. 734/2026 CM No. 1883/2026 1. Impugned in this petition filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an order and judgment dated 25th September, 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Srinagar Bench, Srinagar [“the Tribunal”] in TA No. 1999 of 2020 titled “Gh. Jeelani Masoodi & Ors. Vs. State of JK & Anr.”, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the T.A and has quashed the tentative seniority list dated 10th June 2009 and final seniority list dated 12th April, 2010. 2. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal has been assailed by the petitioners primarily on the ground that the two seniority lists, i.e., the tentative seniority list dated 10th June, 2009 and MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 17.04.26 the final seniority list dated 12th April, 2010 have been quashed by the Tribunal without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and others who have been adversely affected in the matter of their seniority. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the final seniority list dated 12th April, 2010 could not have been quashed by the Tribunal unless the persons affected were made party respondents and had been given a fair opportunity of being heard. The judgment impugned, on the face of it, is in violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, cannot sustain in law. 4. Without going into other aspects of the dispute raised by the learned appearing counsel for the petitioners, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and judgment passed by the Tribunal and direct the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh after the respondents take steps for arraying all the affected persons as party respondents. The petitioners before us are, however, impleaded as party respondents. 5. Let the parties before us appear before the Tribunal on 04.05.2026. 6. Disposed of. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 15.04.2026 “ARIF” MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 17.04.26