Zubair Ahmad Sheikh vs RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT on 21 October 2026

1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present Original Application is directed against the impugned Order No. 152-SSB of 2024 dated 01.04.2024, whereby the claim of the applicant, a person with benchmark disability (locomotor disability, namely cerebral palsy), was rejected by respondent No. 3 in purported compliance with the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in an earlier round of litigation, being O.A. No. 92/2024, titled Zubair Ahmad Sheikh and Others v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, and the subsequent contempt proceedings initiated by the applicant in C.P. No. 131/2024.

2. The applicant had applied for the post of Panchayat Secretary pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 03/2022 dated 26.05.2022. While submitting the online application form, the applicant inadvertently selected the disability category as “Multiple Disability” instead of his actual category, namely “Locomotor Disability”. The applicant sought rectification of the said inadvertent error before the respondent Board; however, his request was not acceded to, compelling him and two other similarly situated candidates to approach this Hon’ble Tribunal by filing the aforesaid Original Application, seeking appropriate directions for treating their candidature under the Locomotor Disability category instead of the Multiple Disability category and for carrying out the necessary corrections in their application forms in light of their representations.

3. This Hon’ble Tribunal disposed of the said Original Application vide order dated 15.02.2024, directing the respondents to consider the applicant’s claim. However, alleging non-compliance with the said directions, the applicant initiated contempt proceedings. During the pendency of those proceedings, the respondent Board issued the impugned order dated 01.04.2024, which was placed on record along with the statement of facts/compliance report filed before this Hon’ble Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the impugned order is arbitrary, unreasonable and legally unsustainable, and is alleged to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the applicable Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Board (Business and Procedure) Regulations, including the Regulations of 2013 and 2022, as applicable. The applicant also challenges Final Selection List Notification No. 19-Selection of 2024 dated 21.05.2024, to the limited extent that his candidature for the post of Panchayat Secretary, advertised vide Advertisement Notification No. 03/2022 dated 26.05.2022, has been rejected on account of the alleged inadvertent clerical error committed while filling in the online application form.

5. It is further submitted that the applicant otherwise fulfils the prescribed eligibility criteria and claims to possess the requisite merit under the relevant category. According to the applicant, his exclusion from consideration solely on account of the inadvertent selection of an incorrect disability category in the online application form is unjustified and disproportionate, particularly when he had sought rectification of the error before the respondent Board. The applicant, therefore, contends that the impugned rejection and his consequential exclusion from the final selection list warrant judicial scrutiny in accordance with the applicable rules and the statutory protections available to persons with benchmark disabilities.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents is present pursuant to the advance notice served by learned counsel for the applicant.

7. Issue notice.

8. Mr. Syed Musaib, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents (R-1 to R-3) and seeks time to file reply/objections. None appears on behalf of respondent No. 4, the private respondent.

9. Accordingly, four weeks’ time is granted to the official respondents to file their reply/objections, with an advance copy thereof to be furnished to learned counsel for the applicant.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant is also directed to take appropriate steps to effect service upon respondent No. 4 through registered post under acknowledgment due (A/D) and furnish proof thereof before the Registry within fifteen days.

11. It is further directed that the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 shall remain subject to the outcome of the present proceedings. The said direction shall be subject to any further order that may be passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal upon an appropriate application or motion for modification.

12. List on 23.12.2026. Prasant Kumar Member (A) Justice Ritu Tagore Member (J) Devendra Tripathi ( steno 'd' )