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) 3335

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
454/2020
T.A./23/2020



CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)

Hearing through video conferencing Transfer Application No. 23/2020 Reserved on: - 15.09.2025 Pronounced on: - 16.03.2026 HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)

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

1. Preeti Sharma, Age 26 years, D/o Sh. Ashok Kumar, R/o Village Rajal, Tehsil Nowshera, District Rajouri.

…Applicant (Advocate: - Mr. Faiz Ul Arif Fahmi)

Versus

1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner/ Secretary, Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu.

2. Director School Education, Jammu.

3. Chief Education Officer, Rajouri.

4. Vishal Sharma, S/o Late Sh. Mast Ram, R/o Village Hathal, Tehsil Sunderbani, District Rajouri.

5. Anubhav Khajuria, S/o Late Sh. K.L. Khajuria, R/o Prat, Tehsil Sunderbani, District Rajouri.

…Respondents (Advocate:- Mr. Rajesh Thapa, ld. A.A.G., Mr. Sudesh Magotra, ld.

A.A.G.)

ORDER Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP No.2279/2019 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.23/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

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

a) An appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly a writ of Mandamus whereby commanding and directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Teacher instead of Lab Assistant under the SRO-43 of 1994 (Compassionate Appointment Rules) on the same analogy as has been done in the case of the private respondents who were appointed on Compassionate grounds by infringing the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by adopting a different yard stick to the case of the petitioner.

b) Further the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Teacher at par with the private respondents by giving the equal treatment as has been extended to the private respondents.

c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

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

a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No.

2279/2019 which was originally filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal and registered as T.A. No. 23/2020.

b) The applicant, Ms. Preeti Sharma, is the daughter of Late Smt.

Sangeeta Rani, who was serving as a Master in the School Education Department of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir. The mother of the applicant died in harness on 11.02.2016 while in active service, leaving the applicant as one of her dependents. The deceased employee was the sole breadwinner of the family and her death caused financial hardship to the family.

c) After the death of her mother, the applicant applied for appointment on compassionate grounds under the provisions of SRO-43 of 1994, which governs compassionate appointments in the State. Upon consideration of her case, the competent authority issued Order No. CEOR/NG/2017-18/2923-25 dated 26.04.2017 whereby the applicant was appointed as Lab Assistant and was adjusted in Higher Secondary School, Lamberi, District Rajouri. The applicant joined the said post and has been discharging her duties since then.

d) The applicant states that she possesses the qualification of B.Sc.

and B.Ed., and according to her, she was eligible to be appointed to the post of Teacher in the School Education Department. She submits that after joining the service, she made several representations to the authorities requesting that her appointment be modified and that she be appointed as Teacher in view of her educational qualifications. According to the applicant, the authorities assured her that her grievance would be considered, but no decision was taken in this regard.

e) It is further pleaded by the applicant that under the prevailing practice and rules governing compassionate appointments, persons possessin

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