Union Territory Of J&K Through vs Dr. Waseem Raja on 18 April, 2026

    0
    39
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench

    Union Territory Of J&K Through vs Dr. Waseem Raja on 18 April, 2026

    Author: Sanjeev Kumar

    Bench: Sanjeev Kumar

                                                                               Serial No. 68
                                                                             SUPPL. CAUSE LIST-I
    
    
    
                                    HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                                                    AT SRINAGAR
    
                                                      WP(C) 686/2026
                                                      CM(1736/2026)
    
                             1. Union Territory of J&K Through
                             Commissioner Secretary to
                             Government, Higher Education
                             Department, Civil Secretariat,
                             Jammu and Srinagar.
    
                             2. Under Secretary to Government,
                             Higher Education Department, Civil
                             Secretariat, Srinagar, Jammu and
                             Kashmir.
                                                                                ...Petitioner(s)
    
                             Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA
    
                                                            Vs.
    
                              1. Dr. Waseem Raja
                                 S/O: Shri Ghulam Nabi
                                 R/O: Tiken, Butapora, Pulwama.
    
                              2. J&K Public Service Commission
                                 through its Secretary Solina,
                                 Rambagh, Srinagar.
    
                              3. Sumira Jan
                                 D/O: Mohammad Ismail Dar
                                 R/O: Dangerpora, Nanil, Anantnag.
    
                              4. Javaid Ahmad Wagay
                                 S/O: Ghulam Ahmad Wagay
                                 R/O: House No. 138, New Colony,
                                 Tiken Butapora, Pulwama.
    
                                                                              ...Respondent(s)
    
                             Through:    Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganie, Sr. Advocate with
                                         Mr. Mir Kamil Nazir, Advocate
                                         Mr. Shah Amir, Advocate for R-2.
    
    
    MIR ARIF MANZOOR
    I attest to the accuracy and
    authenticity of this document
    
    21.04.26
                             WP(C) No. 686/2026                                              Page 1
                               CORAM:
                                      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE.
                                      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE.
                                                       ORDER (ORAL)

    18.04.2026

    01. Impugned in this petition filed by the petitioners under

    SPONSORED

    Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an order and judgment

    dated 26th February, 2025, passed by the Central Administrative

    Tribunal, Srinagar Bench [“the Tribunal”] in OA No. 638/2023 in

    case titled “Waseem Raja Vs. Union Territory of J&K and Ors.“,

    whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA of the respondent No. 1

    herein and, by a Writ of Certiorari, quashed order No.

    PSC/DR/AP/Botany/2019 dated 6th June, 2023 and a show cause

    notice bearing No. Head-GAZ/176/2023 dated 3rd August, 2023.

    02. The Tribunal has directed the petitioners herein to

    consider the case of respondent No. 1 herein for his appointment

    as Assistant Professor in the discipline of Botany against any

    vacancy which is unfilled as on date. There is a further direction to

    the petitioners herein to accommodate respondent No. 1 herein by

    creating a supernumerary post in the event no vacancy of

    Assistant Professor (Botany) is available in the Department.

    03. Impugned judgment is assailed by the petitioners herein

    on multiple grounds. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge

    urged by Mr. Ilyas Laway, learned Government Advocate

    appearing for the petitioners, we deem it appropriate to narrate

    few facts which are relevant to the disposal of this petition.
    MIR ARIF MANZOOR
    I attest to the accuracy and
    authenticity of this document

    21.04.26

    WP(C) No. 686/2026 Page 2

    04. Vide Advertisement Notification No. 12-PSC (DR-P) of

    2014 dated 29th May, 2014, the Jammu & Kashmir Public Service

    Commission [“PSC”] invited applications for making recruitment

    to 71 posts of Assistant Professors in the discipline of Botany in

    the Department of Higher Education. The candidates who were

    possessing degrees in Applied Botany/Environmental Botany

    were declared ineligible by the PSC. The aggrieved candidates

    approached this Court by way of SWP No. 1817/2016 titled “Javed

    Ahmad Wagay Vs. State and Ors.” and SWP No. 2442/2016 titled

    Sumiya Jamshieed and Ors. Vs. State and Ors.”

    05. Pursuant to the interim directions passed, the petitioners

    in the aforesaid two writ petitions were allowed to participate in

    the process of viva voce. The PSC notified the selection list vide

    notification No. 30 PSC (DR-S) of 2017 dated 14th June, 2017.

    However, due to the interim directions passed by the Court in the

    aforesaid writ petition four (04) posts under Open Merit (OM)

    category were kept reserved.

    06. In another batch of petitions, this Court vide order dated

    29th July, 2016 directed the PSC to finalize the selection process.

    These writ petitions i.e., SWP No. 1543/2016 titled “Sanjeev

    Kumar Vs. State” and SWP No. 81/2017 titled “Deepu Pandita Vs.

    State and Ors.” were dismissed in terms of order dated 21

    February, 2018, whereas the writ petitions SWP No. 1817/2016

    titled “Javed Ahmad Wagay Vs. State and Ors.” and SWP No.

    MIR ARIF MANZOOR 2442/2016 titled “Sumiya Jamshieed and Ors Vs. State and Ors.”
    I attest to the accuracy and
    authenticity of this document

    21.04.26

    WP(C) No. 686/2026 Page 3
    were transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu

    Bench, and the Tribunal having considered the matter came to

    conclusion that there was no merit in the petitions and accordingly

    dismissed the same vide order dated 7th November, 2021.

    07. The Judgment of the Tribunal dated 7th November, 2021

    came to be challenged before this Court in WP(C) No. 2653/2021

    titled “Javed Ahmad Wagay Vs. U.T of J&K and Ors.” and WP(C)

    No. 2665/2021 titled “Sumiya Jamshieed and Anr. Vs. U.T of J&K

    and Ors.” before the Division Bench of this Court. This Court vide

    order dated 20th December, 2021 directed to keep one post of

    Assistant Professor in the discipline of Botany in the case of Javed

    Ahmad supra and two posts of Assistant Professors in the

    discipline of Botany in the case of Sumiya Jamshieed, reserved.

    08. The two cases were clubbed together and were finally

    disposed of by this Court vide order and judgment dated 7th April,

    2023. The judgment of the Tribunal impugned in the writ petitions

    was set aside and a direction was issued to the petitioners herein

    to consider the candidature of the petitioners in the said two writ

    petitions and recommend their candidature for appointment if

    they would fall in the zone of consideration.

    09. It seems that view a view to complying with the

    judgment of this Court the matter was taken up for consideration

    by the PSC in its 10th Meeting held on 9th May, 2023, in which the

    Commission decided to accommodate the two of the three

    MIR ARIF MANZOOR
    petitioners against the two posts reserved by it and decided to
    I attest to the accuracy and
    authenticity of this document

    21.04.26
    WP(C) No. 686/2026 Page 4
    accommodate the third petitioner namely Ms. Sumaira Jan by

    withdrawing the selection and appointment of Mr. Waseem Raja-

    respondent No. 1 herein.

    10. The appointment of Mr. Waseem Raja-respondent No.1

    herein was withdrawn on the ground that he was a candidate last

    selected under the Open Merit and had secured lesser merit than

    Ms. Sumaira Jan. This was done by the PSC vide letter No.

    PSC/DR/AP/Botany/2019 dated 6th June, 2023. Upon receipt of

    the communication from the PSC, the Department of Higher

    Education issued a show cause notice to the respondent No. 1

    herein calling upon him to explain as to why his candidature be

    not withdrawn/cancelled.

    11. This is how the respondent No. 1 was constrained to

    approach the Tribunal by filing OA No. 638/2023. The Tribunal,

    having considered the rival contentions and the material on

    record, came to the conclusion that since, in terms of the interim

    directions passed by this Court in the two writ petition one filed

    by Mr. Javed Ahmad (supra) and the other filed by Ms. Sumiya

    Jamshieed (supra,) there were three posts kept reserved and,

    therefore, there could not have been any difficulty for the

    petitioners herein to accommodate all the three petitioners, more

    so, when they had succeeded in their writ petitions and were

    possessing the requisite merit and eligibility.

    12. The Tribunal was, however, apprised by the petitioners

    MIR ARIF MANZOOR
    herein that though there were interim directions to keep three
    I attest to the accuracy and
    authenticity of this document

    21.04.26
    WP(C) No. 686/2026 Page 5
    posts reserved yet due to oversight only two posts had been kept

    reserved by the PSC and, therefore, it would not be possible to

    accommodate all the three petitioners without withdrawing the

    candidature of at least one candidate i.e., the candidate who is the

    last selected candidate.

    13. The Tribunal allowed the OA and passed the directions

    which have already referred to hereinabove. It is this order and

    judgment of the Tribunal which has been called in question by the

    petitioners herein before this Court.

    14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

    perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion

    that the judgment passed by the Tribunal is perfectly legal both on

    facts and law and, therefore, calls for no interference. Admittedly,

    there were three posts directed to be kept reserved in terms of the

    interim orders passed by this Court in SWP No. 1817/2016 titled

    “Javed Ahmad Wagay Vs. State and Ors.” and SWP No.

    2442/2016 titled “Sumiya Jamshieed and Ors Vs. State and Ors

    respectively. Both the writ petitions have been allowed in favour

    of the writ petitioners therein and, therefore, it was incumbent

    upon the petitioners and the PSC to offer appoint to all the three

    petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions against the three posts

    reserved.

    15. It seems that the PSC did not carry out the mandate of

    the interim directions passed by this Court in the aforesaid two

    MIR ARIF MANZOOR
    I attest to the accuracy and
    authenticity of this document

    21.04.26
    WP(C) No. 686/2026 Page 6
    writ petitions and, on its own, reserved only two posts as against

    three posts as directed by this Court.

    16. Be that as it may, since the three posts of Assistant

    Professors in the discipline of Botany were directed to be kept

    reserved, as such, it has to be presumed that the three posts were

    available with the PSC as well as with the petitioners herein for

    accommodating the writ petitioners in SWP No. 1817/2016 titled

    “Javed Ahmad Wagay Vs. State and Ors.” and SWP No.

    2442/2016 titled “Sumiya Jamshieed and Ors Vs. State and Ors.”

    17. We do not see any good reason or justification in the

    impugned communication of the PSC as well as the show cause

    notice issued by the petitioners herein for withdrawing/cancelling

    the appointment of the respondent No. 1 herein, who was neither

    a party in the aforesaid two writ petitions nor his

    appointment/selection was assailed in any petition. That apart,

    the PSC having failed to carry out the mandate of the interim

    directions passed by this Court, is under an obligation to make

    three posts available for appointment of the three petitioners

    without disturbing the appointment of the respondent No. 1

    herein.

    18. With a view to sort out the matter, we had called upon

    Mr. Ilyas Laway, learned Government Advocate appearing for the

    petitioners herein to ascertain whether any vacancy of Assistant

    Professors in the discipline of Botany was lying vacant with the

    MIR ARIF MANZOOR
    petitioners herein or not, and he has submitted that twenty one
    I attest to the accuracy and
    authenticity of this document

    21.04.26
    WP(C) No. 686/2026 Page 7
    (21) posts of Assistant Professors in the discipline of Botany are

    available in the Department which are yet to be referred to the

    PSC for selection.

    19. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned

    Government Advocate for the petitioners herein, there is no

    difficulty in accommodating the respondent No. 1 herein by

    allowing him to continue in service by utilizing one of the twenty

    one (21) available posts. Ordered accordingly.

    20. With the slight modification which we have made

    hereinabove, we uphold the judgment of the Tribunal and

    consequently dispose of the writ petition accordingly. The

    petitioners herein shall do well to complete the entire exercise as

    directed above within a period of two months from today.

    21. Disposed of.

                                                 (SANJAY PARIHAR)        (SANJEEV KUMAR)
                                                      JUDGE                  JUDGE
                             SRINAGAR:
                             18.04.2026
                             "Mir Arif"
    
                                    (i)      Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No.
                                    (ii)     Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No.
    
    
    
    
    MIR ARIF MANZOOR
    I attest to the accuracy and
    authenticity of this document
    
    21.04.26
                             WP(C) No. 686/2026                                             Page 8
     



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here