Mohammad Shafi Budoo vs UT Of Jammu And Kashmir & Anr.

JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

The Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging, inter alia, the communication dated 01.07.2026 bearing No. PDD-HRM/52/2023-05, whereby the respondents have initiated/continued the process of promotion/regularisation in the concerned cadres without first considering the applicant’s pending claim relating to seniority and promotional avenues and without, according to the applicant, duly accounting for the reservation and other statutory protections available to Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBDs).

Central Administrative Tribunal^{02.It is submitted that the applicant is a person with} permanent locomotor disability assessed at 80%, duly certified by the competent Medical Board. The applicant was appointed as Junior Engineer (Electrical) against a post reserved for Persons with Disabilities pursuant to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court in SWP No. 2363/1998, titled Mohammad Shafi Budoo v. State & Others. Despite his appointment against the reserved category, his claim for appropriate fixation of seniority and consequential consideration for promotion is stated to have remained unresolved despite repeated representations.

Learned counsel further submits that the applicant was subsequently entrusted with in-charge/look-after arrangements as Assistant Engineer in the year 2008 and as Assistant Executive Engineer in the year 2013. It is contended that the respondents have, from time to time, undertaken promotional exercises in favour of other officers without first considering the applicant’s claim in Central Administrative Tribunal^{accordance with the applicable seniority, Recruitment} Rules and the reservation provisions applicable to PwBDs.

It is further submitted that the applicant had earlier submitted detailed objections dated 29.11.2025 against a similar promotional exercise initiated vide communication dated 21.11.2025, which objections, according to the applicant, have not been finally considered. During the pendency thereof, the respondents issued the impugned communication dated 01.07.2026, thereby giving rise to a further cause of action and, according to the applicant, adversely affecting his promotional avenues.

Learned counsel submits that the respondents are required to undertake the promotional exercise in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, Recruitment Rules, reservation policy and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including the judgments in Union of India & Anr. v. National Federation of the Blind & Ors., (2013) 8 SCC 244, and Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., decided on 30.06.2016 in Central Administrative Tribunal^{W.P.(C) No. 521/2008, as well as the applicable} Government instructions.

The applicant has, accordingly, sought various reliefs, including quashing of the impugned communication dated 01.07.2026; preparation/finalisation of the seniority position in the concerned cadres in accordance with the applicable rules and reservation provisions; consideration and disposal of his pending representations/objections; protection of his promotional avenues; consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in accordance with his seniority and eligibility; and production of the relevant records.

Pending disposal of the Original Application, the applicant has also sought stay of the impugned communication and a direction restraining the respondents from proceeding further with the promotional exercise, or, in the alternative, to keep one post of Executive Engineer vacant for consideration of the applicant’s claim.

However, after arguing the matter for some time, learned Central Administrative Tribunal^{counsel for the applicant submits that the ends of justice} would be adequately met if the present Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the same as a representation and to consider the assertions and claims raised therein, along with the documents annexed thereto and the judgments relied upon by them, before proceeding further with the exercise of promotion/regularisation pursuant to the impugned communication dated 01.07.2026.

Mr. Rais-ud-Din Ganie, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing pursuant to the advance notice served by learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the present Original Application may be disposed of with appropriate directions, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and the material placed on record, this Tribunal is of the Central Administrative Tribunal^{considered opinion that, in view of the limited prayer now} pressed by learned counsel for the applicant, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present Original Application pending.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, the present Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the same as a representation and to examine the grievances, claims and assertions raised therein, along with the documents annexed thereto, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations, Government instructions and the law governing the field.

While undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the competent authority shall take into consideration the Office Memorandum dated 28.12.2023, the representations/objections stated to have been submitted by the applicants, and the judgments relied upon by them, including National Federation of the Blind v. Union of India, (2013) 8 SCC 244, and Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Central Administrative Tribunal^{Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 521/2008, decided} on 30.06.2016, to the extent applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The competent authority shall also examine the applicants’ claim relating to their seniority and promotional avenues in the light of the aforesaid material and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.

The aforesaid exercise shall be completed before finalisation of the promotional exercise pursuant to the impugned Memorandum dated 01.07.2026, insofar as the same may affect the applicants’ claims. The competent authority shall pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order and communicate the same to the applicants within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims raised by the applicants, and all questions of fact and law are left open for consideration by the competent authority.

Central Administrative Tribunal^{16.With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application} stands disposed of. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

Registry shall consign the file to the Record Room after due compliance.