Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Atul Kumar vs Raghudev Singh And Ors on 4 August, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
Sr. No. 39
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No. WP(C) No. 1527/2025
CM No. 3559/2025
Caveat No. 1246/2025
Atul Kumar, Secretary J&K Services Selection Board, .....Petitioner(s)
Jammu and Anr.
Through :- Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG.
v/s
Raghudev Singh and ors. .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Sumit Moza, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER(ORAL)
04.08.2025
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed
by the petitioners to throw challenge to an order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench (in short, “the Tribunal”) in
contempt petition No. 61/225/2024, whereby the Tribunal has called upon the
petitioners herein to file a supplementary affidavit, indicating therein clearly as
to whether any candidate possessing the ITI Diploma Certificate in Building
Construction from the Kissan Institute of Technology, R.S. Pura, Jammu
obtained on or before the academic session 2010, has been given appointment in
the department or not. The impugned order is called-in-question by the
petitioners, primarily, on the ground that a direction passed is tantamount to
holding an exercise, which ought to have been conducted while disposing of the
petition. In a nutshell, the argument of Mr. Raman Sharma, learned AAG is that
the direction contained in the impugned order expands the scope of directions
2 WP (C) No. 1527/2025
contained in the judgment, of which the violation is alleged in the contempt
petition.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the order impugned
passed by the Tribunal is only with a view to ensure that a concluded judgment
passed by the Tribunal dated 21.09.2023 is complied with by the petitioners in
letter and spirit. For the facility of reference, the operative portion of the
judgment of the Tribunal reads as under:-
“12. We dispose of the O.A. in the same lines as observed by this
Tribunal in T.A. No. 8282/2020 in deciding the T.A., on the
ground of parity, making it clear that in case any candidate, who
studied ITI in building construction trade from Kissan Institute
of Technology, R.S. Pura, Jammu before the academic year 2010
was treated as qualified, the case of the applicant shall also be
considered. We also make it clear that in case the applicant
happens to be selected, his appointment shall be prospective in
nature, in all respects. The impugned order dated 30.3.2017 is
quashed and set aside. The exercise in this behalf shall be
completed by the Respondent Nos. I & 2 within six weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
3. From the plain reading of para-12 of the judgment dated
21.09.2023, it clearly transpires that the Tribunal while allowing the O.A filed
by the respondents clearly and unequivocally directed the petitioners herein to
consider the respondents as “qualified”, provided the petitioners have selected
and appointed a candidate with a similar qualification obtained from Kissan
Institute of Technology, R.S. Pura, Jammu before academic year 2010.
4. The respondents in their contempt petition asserted that there were
candidates with similar qualification selected and appointed by the petitioner
and, therefore, he cannot be discriminated and the judgment passed by the
Tribunal has to be given effect to. With a view to verify this aspect, the Tribunal
has called upon the petitioners to file a better compliance by way of a
supplementary affidavit. We fail to understand as to how this direction for the
better compliance, having regard to the nature of controversy involved, could be
3 WP (C) No. 1527/2025
found fault with. The Tribunal has rightly proceeded in the matter and the
limited inquiry, that is required to ensure the implementation of the judgment,
has only been embarked upon.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the instant petition
and the same is, accordingly, dismissed alongwith connected applications.
(Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
JAMMU
04.08.2025
Ram Krishan
Ram Krishan
2025.05.11 17:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document