SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1469

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Anita Kumari – Appellant
Versus
Education – Respondent
T.A./163/2025



CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)

Hearing through video conferencing Transfer Application No. 163/2025 Reserved on: - 16.10.2025 Pronounced on: - 02.02.2026 HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)

Anita Kumari, age 50 years D/O Sh. Anchal Dass, W/O Sh. Raj Kumar R/O H.No.80, Ward No.1, Narwal Pain, Satwari, Jammu.

…Applicant (Advocate: -Mr. S.K Anand)

Versus

1. State of Jammu & Kashmir, Through Commissioner-cum-

Secretary to Government, Civil Sectt., Srinagar.

2. Deputy Commissioner, Kathua.

3. Director School Education, Jammu.

4. Chief Education Officer, Kathua.

…Respondent (Advocate:- Mr. Rajesh Thappa, AAG, Mr. Sudesh Magotra, Ld.

AAG)

HARSHIT H C A =I R N S , H O I = T C Y e A n D tra A l V Administrative Tribunal Jammu Bench, OU=Court master, PostalCode=180001, L=jammu, S=JAMMU AND KASHMIR, STREET="Wazarat Road, Opposite Chief Secretary Camp office Jammu Jandk", Phone=

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP No.930/2018 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.163/2025 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: -

It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that in view of the submissions made hereinabove and many more to be argued at the time of hearing; this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to :-

(i) Allow the writ petition;

(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari, thereby, quashing the order of consideration passed by the respondent No.2 dated 30.08.2012 vide his No.DSEJ/legal/1135-37 be quashed.

(iii) Command the respondents to grant the seniority with effect from 1993 when the similarly situated persons in the same selection were selected/appointed along with other consequential benefits.

iv) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit vand proper under the facts and circumstances may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

v) Allow the cost of the petition.”

HARSHIT H C A =I R N S , H O I = T C Y e A n D tra A l V Administrative Tribunal Jammu Bench, OU=Court master, PostalCode=180001, L=jammu, S=JAMMU AND KASHMIR, STREET="Wazarat Road, Opposite Chief Secretary Camp office Jammu Jandk", Phone=

3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in her pleadings are as follows: -

a) The applicant is a permanent resident of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and a citizen of India, entitled to all constitutional, statutory, and service-related rights guaranteed under law.

b) The controversy traces its origin to Advertisement Notice No.

2 of 1990 dated 22.12.1990, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua, acting as Chairman, District Recruitment Board, inviting applications for the posts of Laboratory Assistant and Library Assistant. The prescribed qualification for the post of Laboratory Assistant was Matriculation with Science c) The applicant, being fully eligible and possessing the requisite qualification, applied for the post of Laboratory Assistant. Subsequently, another Advertisement Notice No. 1 of 1992 dated 11.06.1992 was issued, wherein it was specifically stipulated that candidates who had already applied pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 2 of 1990 need not apply again.

HARSHIT H C A =I R N S , H O I = T C Y e A n D tra A l V Administrative Tribunal Jammu Bench, OU=Court master, PostalCode=180001, L=jammu, S=JAMMU AND KASHMIR, STREET="Wazarat Road, Opposite Chief Secretary Camp office Jammu Jandk", Phone=

d) Despite the clear eligibility criteria, candidates who had failed in the Science subject were selected, whereas the applicant who had passed Matriculation with Science—was relegated to the waiting list. Aggrieved, the applicant challenged the illegal selection before the Hon’ble High Court by filing SWP No.

54/1993 e) The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on

23.12.1998, against which the applicant preferred LPA

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top