Shahid Ahmad Ganie & Ors. vs UT Of J&K & Ors.

Before proceeding further, it is revealed from the record that the applicants have filed MA No. 1170/2026 seeking permission to file a joint Original Application. For the reasons stated in the application, the said MA is allowed. The applicants are permitted to prosecute the present Original Application jointly.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicants were engaged in the respondent-Department as PDLs/TDLs in their respective districts of Baramulla and Kupwara, falling under the combined Circle of O&M, KPDCL, Sopore. It is submitted that, having rendered continuous service, the applicants have been placed in the seniority maintained by the respondents for the purpose of Central Administrative Tribunal^{regularization upon completion of seven years of} continuous service against available vacancies, and that the applicants duly figure in the relevant seniority lists.

Learned counsel further submits that, as per the procedure followed by the respondents, the vacant Class-IV posts against which eligible PDLs/TDLs are to be considered for regularization are referred to the District Level Committee (DLC). In this regard, certain posts were initially referred on 20.08.2025 and, subsequently, 841 posts were forwarded vide communication dated 03.10.2025. The applicants are stated to figure in the said list at Serial Nos. 766, 754, 775, 764, 763, 781, 784, 773, 774, 772, 779, 755 and 756, respectively, strictly in accordance with their seniority. A copy of the communication dated 03.10.2025, along with the list of 841 posts, has been annexed with the OA as Annexure-I.

It is further submitted that, in respect of the aforesaid posts, the first meeting of the DLC was conducted on 11.03.2026, in which the applicants participated. Central Administrative Tribunal^{Thereafter, Respondent No. 8 submitted further files} before the Convener of the DLC on 28.04.2026, comprising 548 posts pertaining to District Baramulla and 312 posts pertaining to District Kupwara. The communication dated 28.04.2026 has been annexed as Annexure-II.

Learned counsel submits that, thereafter, Respondent No. 4, vide communication dated 07.05.2026, indicated that 841 posts from Circle Sopore and 31 posts from TLMD-III, Baramulla, had been forwarded to the Convener of the DLC, thereby taking the total number of posts/vacancies referred for consideration to 860. The said communication has been annexed as Annexure-III.

It is further submitted that, out of the aforesaid vacancies, administrative observations were raised in respect of 45 candidates, including 9 of the present applicants. The relevant communication dated 22.05.2026, along with the list, has been annexed as Annexure-IV. According to learned counsel, Respondent No. 8, being the Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal^{the District Level Committee concerned for Baramulla} and Kupwara, furnished the requisite clarifications in respect of the observations raised by the Convener, and the said observations were cleared on the same date. However, the annexures accompanying the said communication have not been furnished to the applicants and are stated to remain in the custody and possession of the respondents. The communication dated 22.05.2026 has been annexed as Annexure-V.

Learned counsel further submits that Respondent No. 8 thereafter furnished another clarification vide communication dated 25.07.2026, indicating that there were 810 posts in the concerned Circle, out of which 81 posts had been earmarked for cases falling under SRO-43. It is submitted that, after taking into account the vacancies utilized and the vacancies allegedly earmarked under SRO-43, the respondents themselves subsequently clarified the vacancy position vide communication dated 04.08.2026. The said communication has been annexed as Central Administrative Tribunal^{Annexure-VI and Annexure-VII, respectively.}

It is the further case of the applicants that some vacancies had also been referred by TLMD-III, District Baramulla, vide communication dated 07.05.2026 and, thus, in aggregate, 860 vacancies were placed before the DLC for consideration of eligible PDLs/TDLs for regularization. According to the applicants, even if 10% of the vacancies, instead of 5%, were to be earmarked for cases under SRO-43, only 86 vacancies would be required to be excluded, leaving 774 vacancies available for consideration. It is further submitted that 13 candidates considered against the said vacancies had either retired or died, thereby resulting in 13 additional vacancies and bringing the total number of vacancies allegedly available for consideration to 787.

Learned counsel submits that, despite the availability of vacancies and the applicants' placement in the relevant seniority lists, their cases were not considered in the second DLC meeting held on 07.08.2026. According to Central Administrative Tribunal^{the applicants, they were informed thereafter that the DLC} had considered only 738 candidates, thereby excluding the applicants from the zone of consideration despite, according to them, the availability of 36 clear vacancies.

It is contended that the applicants fulfil the requisite eligibility conditions and that their cases had already been duly referred to the DLC. Learned counsel submits that the applicants have rendered several years of continuous service and are entitled to consideration for regularization in accordance with their seniority and subject to the availability of vacancies. Their exclusion from consideration, without any disclosed reason or justification, is therefore alleged to be arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel further submits that the applicants' names continued to figure in the various communications exchanged between the concerned authorities and the DLC, and that the applicants were also permitted to Central Administrative Tribunal^{participate in the first DLC meeting held on 11.03.2026. It} is, therefore, contended that their subsequent exclusion from consideration in the second DLC meeting held on 07.08.2026, without any communication declaring them ineligible or recording any adverse finding against them, is wholly unexplained and contrary to the principles of fairness and transparency.

It is also contended that the applicants have learnt that certain persons who, according to them, do not fulfil the requisite eligibility conditions are being accommodated against the vacancies in question. Learned counsel further questions the decision of the respondents to earmark 10% of the vacancies for cases under SRO-43, contending that, in the earlier DLC proceedings, only 5% of the vacancies had been earmarked for such cases and that no Government order, statutory provision or competent authority's decision authorizing enhancement of the said percentage to 10% has been disclosed to the applicants.

According to learned counsel, even assuming that 10% of Central Administrative Tribunal^{the vacancies could validly be earmarked for SRO-43} cases, 36 clear vacancies would still remain available for consideration. The applicants, being next in the order of seniority and otherwise eligible, therefore claim a right to consideration against such vacancies. It is submitted that the respondents could not have withheld or utilized the said vacancies without first considering the applicants' cases in accordance with the applicable rules and procedure.

After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the present Original Application is directed to be treated as a representation by the respondents and the assertions made therein, along with the documents annexed thereto, are considered and decided in accordance with law within a stipulated period.

Mr. Rais Ud Din Ganaie, learned DAG, appearing pursuant to the advance notice served by learned counsel for the applicants, submits that the present Original Central Administrative Tribunal^{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 considered view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present Original Application pending, particularly when the applicants themselves have confined their prayer to seeking consideration of the grievances raised by them by the competent authority.

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 present Original Application as a representation and to consider the assertions and grievances raised therein, along with the documents annexed thereto, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations, Central Administrative Tribunal^{Government instructions and the law governing the field.}

The competent authority shall examine the claim of the applicants objectively, including their eligibility, seniority, availability of vacancies, the manner in which the vacancies have been allocated/utilized, and the basis, if any, for their exclusion from consideration in the DLC proceedings held on 07.08.2026. The competent authority shall also examine the contention of the applicants with regard to the percentage of vacancies earmarked for cases under SRO-43, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules/instructions and the orders, if any, issued by the competent authority in that regard.

The respondents shall thereafter pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order dealing with the issues raised by the applicants, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/service of a certified copy of this order.

For a period of two weeks, the respondents shall not give effect to or act upon the recommendations made by the DLC in its meeting held on 07.08.2026. Central Administrative Tribunal^{22.It is, however, made clear that this Tribunal has not} expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims raised by the applicants. All questions of fact and law, including those relating to the applicants' eligibility, seniority, entitlement, availability and allocation/utilization of vacancies, as well as the legality and propriety of the procedure followed by the respondents, are left open for consideration and determination by the competent authority.

With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application stands disposed of. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

No order as to costs.

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