Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Muzaffar Ahmad Khanday vs Union Territory Of J&K on 3 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Serial No. 17
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case : WP(C) No. 304/2025
CM No. 639/2025
CM No. 640/2025
Cav No. 2464/2024
Muzaffar Ahmad Khanday
S/o AbduI Rashid Khanday
R/o Village Aftee, Tehsil Warwan,
District Kishtwar ...Petitioner (s)
Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Abhirash Sharma, Advocate
VERSUS
1. Union Territory of J&K
Through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt
General Administration Department
Civil Secretariat, J&K, Jammu -180001
2. J&K Public Service Commission
Through its Secretary
Resham Ghar Colony, Jam mu/ Solina Srinagar
3. Chairman
J&K Public Service
Resham Ghar Colony, Jammu / Solina Srinagar
4. Tehsildar,
Tehsil Warwan, District Kishtwar
....Official respondents
5. Nitish Sharma
S/o Gori Lal
R/o village Agral, Sarthal, District Kishtwar
6. Sanjay Singh
S/O Sh lanki Nath Thakur
R/o Village Lopara, Dachhan, District Kishtwar
7. Mohmad Rafeeq Baba
S/o Noor Mohd Baba
R/o 310, Village Rathson,
Tehsil Beerwah, District Budgam
8. Ankush Singh Chambyal
S/O Sh Kulbhushan Singh
R/o H. No. 1, Kuthyara, Niabat Bhajja,
District Doda
9. Sanam Shahid
D/o Shahid Hussain Wani,
2 WP(C) 304 of 2025
R/o Chakka Bhaderwah (Doda)
10. Saquib Ahsan Zargar
S/o Mohd Ahsan Zargar
R/o 21, Zargar Mohalla, Mundhar Doda
11. Sumaiya Farooq
D/o Farooq Ahmad
R/o 54 Nagam Banihal, District Ramban
12. Kajal Khajuria
D/o Sh K. Gopal
R/o VPO Chowki Jandrore, District Udhampur
...Performa Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr.AAG
Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Dhruv Pant, Advocate
Mr. F. A. Natnoo, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE.
ORDER
03.03.2025
1. The petitioner has, by way of petition writ petition sought the following
reliefs:-
I) Mandamus, commanding and directing the respondents
No.4, to comply with the judgment and Order dated
07.11.2024 passed in OA No. 1580/2023 by the Hon’ble
Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench and issue
EWS Certificate of UT of J&K in favour of the petitioner, as
directed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by its above
referred order dated 07.11.2024;
II) Mandamus, commanding and directing the respondents No
4, to issue EWS certificate of UT of J&K in favour of the
petitioner in the same manner, as have been issued by the
respective competent authority in favour of the Performa
respondents, notwithstanding the fact, that the petitioner
(like the Performa respondents) lives in an area, identified as
backward area under the J&K Reservation Act read with
J&K Reservation Rules but have not taken benefit of RBA
Category;
III) (Mandamus, commanding and directing the respondent Nos.
2 and 3 to recommend the name of the petitioner to the
junior scale of JKAS/J&K Police (G) Service/ J&K
Accounts (G) service under EWS Category, in pursuance of
3 WP(C) 304 of 2025
Notification No. OB-PSC (DR-P) of 2022, dated
19.04.2022, with further direction to the GAD, to appoint
the petitioner to said service in pursuance of the selection
made by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service
Commission vide Notification No. PSC/ Exam/
2023/S/37dated 22.08.2023; after the said respondents
receive the EWS certificate of the petitioner of UT of J&K
from respondent No. 4 in compliance to the
above referred Judgment and order dated 07.11.2024;
IV) Prohibition, restraining the respondents Nos. 2 and 3, from
recommending the name/s of any less meritorious
candidate/s (less meritorious than the petitioner) for CCE-
2022 against the vacancy against which, the petitioner had
been selected till the EWS
Certificate of UT of J&K in favour of the petitioner is
received by the respondent PSC.”
2. The facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition are that vide Notification
No. OB-PSC (DR-P) of 2022, dated 19.04.2022 applications through online
mode were invited for appearing in the J&K Combined Competitive
(Preliminary) Examination, 2022. Out of total 220 posts 22 posts were reserved
for EWS Category. It appears that the petitioner who claims to be belonging to
EWS Category participated in the selection process viz preliminary examination,
main examination and interview and qualified the same. He was called for
medical examination, but when the final selection list was issued the name of the
petitioner was found missing. Upon enquiry it was found by the petitioner that
because he belongs to a backward area, as such, the official respondents held
him not eligible for appointment under EWS Category.
3. Aggrieved by the action of the official respondents, the petitioner along
with similarly situated other candidates filed an Original Application before the
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Jammu Bench, Jammu. The said
4 WP(C) 304 of 2025
application came to be disposed of by the CAT vide its judgment dated
07.11.2024. The operative portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
“(i) The Tehsildars concerned are directed to ascertain if the
applicants had earlier been benefited from any other reserved
category certificate except EWS category. In
case, the applicants have not been benefited from any other
reserved category certificate, and if they are eligible, the
Tehsildars concerned should issue EWS certificate of UT of
J&K in their favour within a month, as per reservation rules.
(ii) In case, the applicants are able to obtain a fresh EWS
certificate for applying for jobs in the UT of J&K, the
respondents shall consider the same and take further
steps to appoint the applicants within a month thereafter.
(iii) In case, the applicants are unable to obtain a fresh EWS
certificate for applying for jobs in the UT of J&K, the
respondents shall go ahead with the selection process for the
next meritorious candidates.”
4. It has been contended that judgment dated 07.11.2024 was served by the
petitioner upon the respondents including respondent No. 4-Tehsildar,Tehsil
Warwan, District Kishtwar calling upon him to issue EWS Certificate of UT of
J&K in favour of the petitioner, so that he could produce the same before the
J&K Public Service Commission to enable the respondent- Public Service
Commission to recommend his name to General Administration Department
(GAD) for appointment in the CCE 2022 Services under EWS Category. It has
been contended that the respondent No. 4-Tehsildar was obliged to comply with
the direction of the CAT within a period of one month, but despite lapse of one
month he has not taken any action pursuant to the said direction. The petitioner
apprehends that because of inaction of respondent No. 4-Tehsildar, less
meritorious candidates may get selected against the vacancy in respect of which
the petitioner is entitled to be selected.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
5 WP(C) 304 of 2025
6. As is clear from the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the instant writ
petition, that a direction upon respondent No. 4-Tehsildar for implementation of
order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Jammu
Bench, Jammu is being sought. The other directions pertain to recommendation
of name of the petitioner for his appointment to the junior scale of JKAS/J&K
Police (G) Service/ J&K Accounts (G) Service under EWS Category with a
further direction restrain the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from recommending name
of any less meritorious candidate under the EWS Category.
7. I am afraid a writ petition claiming implementation of a direction of the
Central Administrative Tribunal cannot be maintained because of availability of
alternate and efficacious remedy to the petitioner. Section 17 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act vests jurisdiction and power with a Tribunal in
respect of contempt of itself and the said power is akin to the power of the High
Court under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. Besides this, Section 27 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act vests power with the Tribunal to execute final
orders passed by it. Thus, the petitioner has a statutory remedy available to him
before the Tribunal for execution of the order passed by the Tribunal whereby
certain directions have been issued to respondent No. 4-Tehsildar. In case the
directions are not being complied with by respondent No 4-Tehsildar, it is
always open to the petitioner to move the Central Administrative Tribunal by
way of an application either under Section 17 or under Section 27 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act.
8. It is a well settled law that in a case where a litigant has an alternate and
efficacious remedy available to him, the High Court would be reluctant to
exercise its writ jurisdiction. In the present case, as already stated, the petitioner
6 WP(C) 304 of 2025
has not only an alternate but it has also an efficacious remedy available to him
under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The instant writ
petition is, therefore, not maintainable to the extent of relief clauses (I) and (II).
9. So far as other reliefs prayed by the petitioner are concerned, the same
involve his selection/appointment to a civil post. Therefore, relief pertain to
“service matters” as defined in Section 3 (q) of the Administrative Tribunals
Act. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in case of L. Chandra Kumar
vs. Union of India and others, (1997) 3 SCC 261 has made it clear that it
would not be open for the litigants to directly approach the High Court in
matters relating to service disputes cognizable by CAT, but the decision of the
Tribunal will be subject to the scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High
Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls. Therefore, so far as
relief clauses (III) & (IV) are concerned, the petitioner has option of moving the
Tribunal in the first instance or if he is aggrieved of any observation of the
Tribunal passed in the earlier application filed by him before the said Tribunal,
he is also at liberty to file a writ petition challenging the said judgment. One
thing is clear that the instant writ petition in respect of the reliefs claimed by the
petitioner is not maintainable.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the instant writ petition is held to be not
maintainable and is dismissed, as such, leaving it open to the petitioner to
workout appropriate remedy.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
JAMMU
03.03.2025
Bir
Whether order is reportable: No
[ad_1]
Source link