Central Administrative Tribunal
Mehfooz Ahmed vs Technical Education Department on 29 October 2026
:: 1 ::
O.A. No. 61/1505/2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Jammu Bench, Jammu
Hearing through video conferencing
Original Application No. 61/1505/2026
This the 29th day of October, 2026
Hon’ble Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member Hon’ble Ms. Pragya Sahay Saksena, Administrative Member
1.
Mehfooz Ahmed, aged 47 years, S/o Noor Dad, R/o Baishthi Dhara, Surankote Poonch, Jammu & Kashmir.
2.
Shafiq Ahmed, aged 41 years, S/o Mohd Rafiq, R/o Ward No.
08, Mohalla Mohra, Kalai, District Poonch, Jammu & Kashmir.
3.
Mohd Sakinder, aged 40 years, S/o Mohd Ismail, R/o Smote, District Poonch, Jammu & Kashmir.
4.
Ayaz Ahmed, aged 44 years, S/o Mohd Ismail, R/o Surankote, District Poonch, Jammu & Kashmir.
5.
Mohd Azeem, aged 39 years, S/o Abdul Aziz, R/o Dundhak Surankote, PO Sanai District, Poonch, Jammu and Kashmir.
6.
Ramandeep Singh, Aged 29 years, S/o Amarjeet Singh, Ward No. 3, Kamsar, District Poonch, Jammu & Kashmir.
7.
Noreen Akhter, aged 39 years, D/o Mohd Bashir, R/o Village Kalai, Tehsil Haveli, District Poonch, Jammu & Kashmir.
...Applicants
(Through Advocate: Mr. K M Bhatti)
Versus
1.
UT of J&K through Secretary to Govt. Technical Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar.
2.
Director, Skill Development, J&K Jamu.
3.
Government Women Industrial Training Institute, Surankote, Poonch.
6.
Government Industrial Training Institute, Poonch.
(Through Advocate: Mr. Rajesh Thapa, A.A.G.)
ARUN
KUMAR
:: 2 ::
O.A. No. 61/1505/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
(Per:- Pragya Sahay Saksena, Administrative Member)
Miscellaneous Application No. 1600 of 2026 The instant M.A. has been filed by the applicants seeking permission of this Tribunal to join in and pursue O.A. No. 1505 of 2026 together. For the reasons stated therein, the M.A. is allowed. Original Application The instant Original Application (in short O.A.) has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:- 8.1. Commanding the Respondents not to dispense with or disengage the services of the applicants on the available posts (Accounts Assistants, Plumber/Dairy Instructor, Teaching Assistants), held by the applicants and the Respondents be directed to allow the Applicants to continue in the services on the basis of existing arrangement till the posts held by the Applicants are filled up in accordance with rules on substantive basis through proper recruitment process envisaged under law. 8.2 Prohibiting the Respondents not to substitute the services of the Applicants held temporary by them by another similar arrangement as is tried to be done for the post of Applicant No. 7 vide advertisement No. 01 of 2026 dated 03.09.2026. 8.3 Commanding the Respondents not to make requisition for filling up the posts held by the Applicants on similar arrangement at the cost of the rights and interest of the applicants and regularize the services of the applicants for the same post in view of the vast experience and expertise on the subject.”
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants would be satisfied, at this stage, if the O.A. is disposed of by directing the respondents to allow the applicants herein to continue on the post of Accounts Assistants, Plumber/Dairy Instructors, Teaching Assistants on contractual/temporary basis, till regular selection is made and service of the applicants should not be
ARUN KUMAR
:: 3 :: O.A. No. 61/1505/2026
substituted by way of any other ad-hoc/temporary/contractual appointee/guest faculty. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors, Vs Piara Singh & Ors 1992 (4) SCC 118, State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Suresh Kumar Verma & Anr. 1996 (7) SCC 562 and Manish Gupta Vs President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti {SLP (C) No. 12946 of 2019}
3. Mr. Rajesh Thapa, learned A.A.G. appearing on advance notice prays for sometime to file reply.
4. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, we are of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this O.A. pending and same can be disposed of with directions to respondents.
5. Accordingly, this O.A. is disposed of, at the admission stage itself, without entering into the merits of the case, by directing the respondents to not substitute the services of the applicants by contractual/ temporary/ad-hoc/academic arrangement basis, however, the respondents are at liberty to make regular selection on the post.
6. There shall be no orders so as to costs.
(Pragya Sahay Saksena)
(Sanjeev Gupta)
Administrative Member
Judicial Member
Arun…
ARUN KUMAR