Central Administrative Tribunal
Bilal Ahmad Hajam vs HEALTH AND MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT on 4 November 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL SRINAGAR
Order Sheet
Item no.: 19
M.A./634/2026 (SRINAGAR)
[ Interim order ]
In
T.A./51/2025
TERMINATION
PREPONEMENT OF DATE
Court No.: 2
No of Adjournment: 4
Order Dated: 04/11/2026
BILAL AHMAD HAJAM
Vs
HEALTH AND MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
For Applicant(s) Advocate : MS. SEHREEN ZEHRA VICE MR. G M SHAH
For Respondent(s) Advocate : MR. SYED MUSAIB, DAG
Order of The Tribunal
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
4
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.
1. The instant M.A./634/2026 arises out of T.A./51/2025 wherein the applicant seeks a direction for reservation of one post of Assistant Cook G-II (D&T Department) advertised Vide Notification No. 01 of 2026 dated 23.01.2026.
2. What emerges from the pleadings made in the M.A. is that the applicant was working as an Assistant Cook in the Department of Dietetics & Therapeutics (D&T) SKIMS Srinagar, since the year 2005 and has rendered more than 20 years of uninterrupted service to the satisfaction of the respondents.
3. It is also stated that the applicant is similarly situated to other employees, who have approached the Hon'ble High Court of J&K in SWP No. 2265/2015 and the Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated 14.03.2016 directed the respondents to take immediate steps for regularization of the petitioners therein within 08 weeks, and as stated, the said order has attained finality. Copy whereof has also been appended with the M.A. as Annexure II.
4. It is stated in the M.A. that the applicant has now crossed the upper age limit prescribed under Recruitment Rules and under Advertisement Notification No. 01 of 2026 and even otherwise the applicant deserves consideration for his regularization in view of the orders having been passed by the Hon'ble High Court in SWP No. 2265/2015.
5. It is next stated in the M.A. that despite being aware of the pendency of the present T.A. seeking regularization on the post of Assistant Cook, the respondents have sought filling up the post by direct recruitment. To this effect, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon various judgments in the M.A. titled as under:
1. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sukhi Devi, 2005 (9) SCC 733
2. State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, 2010 (9) SCC 247
3. Navjyoti Co-op. Group Housing Society v. Union of India, 1992 (4) SCC 477
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in terms of an earlier order, the respondents were directed to keep the record available in a sealed cover. However, the same has not been done.
7. Issue notice in the M.A. Mr. Syed Musaib, learned DAG, appears and accepts notice, who will file his short objections to the M.A. He submits that the reply has been filed in the main T.A.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that even otherwise it would be a harmless order, if the respondents, notwithstanding the pendency of the Writ Petition, are directed to explore a possibility for the applicant to be engaged since the applicant has worked for long 20 years, which would certainly meet the ends of justice and would at the same time, uphold the ethos of Article 21 of the Constitution and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases titled as under:
1. Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand 2026 INSC 99
2. Dharam Singh v. State of U.P.
3. Jagoo v. Union of India
9. In the meantime, the respondents to consider the case of the applicant in tune with the judgments cited above.
10. List this matter before the Division Bench on 07.12.2026. M. S. Latif Member (J) Abhishek Punia ( court master )