CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)

Hearing through video conferencing Transfer Application No. 537/2020 Reserved on: - 14.07.2025 Pronounced on: - 16.12.2025 HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)

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

Deepinder Singh S/O Jagjit Singh, R/O H.No.3, Ward No.8, Kathua, Age 36 years. …Applicant (Advocate: - Ms. Manpreet Kour)

Versus

1. State of J& K through Chief Secretary Govt of Jammu & Kashmir, Civil Secretariat, Jammu.

2. Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Education Department, Govt of J&K, Civil Secretariat Jammu.

3. Director, School Education, Jammu.

4. Chief Education Officer Kathua.

…Respondents (Advocate:- Mr. Sudesh Magotra, Ld. AAG)

ORDER Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP No.433/2009 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.537/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

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

a) To issue directions to the respondents to give the effect of seniority to the petitioner on the post of the teacher form the date the similarly situated persons/teachers who were selected and joined in pursuance of selection list of 2001, by issuance of writ of mandamus;

b) To issue directions to the respondents to maintain seniority and to give all consequential benefits of seniority to the petitioner by placing the petitioner at appropriate place in the seniority list from the date the other similarly situated persons have been given the seniority who have participated in the selection process and who have applied along with the petitioner for the post of teacher, further to give all the consequential benefits of seniority to the petitioner from the date the other similarly situated teachers have been given their benefit, by issuance of writ of mandamus.

c) To declare the act by which the respondents have not given the effect of seniority to the petitioner on the post of teacher retrospectively from the date the other similarly situated teachers who were selected and joined in pursuance of selection list of 2001, and have not placed the petitioner at appropriate place in the seniority list, as illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the provision of law and rules and is against the provision of principle of natural justice, by issuance of writ of mandamus.

d) Any other writ order or directions as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

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

a) The applicant, a permanent resident of Jammu & Kashmir, participated in the selection process initiated by the respondents for appointment to the post of Teacher pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2001. Being fully qualified with Post- Graduation and B.Ed, and possessing disability under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act, 1998, he applied under the handicapped/blind quota. The applicant was duly selected on merit under the said category.

b) Before issuance of the selection list, certain individuals filed SWP No. 2795/2001 seeking enforcement of the rights of disabled candidates under the 1998 Act. The Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 12.11.2001, directed the respondents to keep intact the vacancies earmarked for blind candidates. Later, the writ petition was disposed of on 29.07.2002 with a direction that the degree of disability of candidates be reassessed and persons with higher disability be given preference, and where disability was equal, candidates with higher academic merit were to be appointed.

c) Against this judgment, the Service Selection Board and some private parties filed LPAs, including the applicant. The Hon’ble Division Bench, vide judgment dated 25.07.2003, upheld the findings of the Single Judge and directed the Selection Committee to re-examine the matter. It further observed th