Dr Ahmed Tauqeer Zahid vs EDUCATION on 3 November 2026

1. Through the medium of the instant O.A., the applicant seeks the following reliefs:

a. Pass an appropriate order or direction commanding the respondents not to replace the petitioners engagement as Assistant Professor at government Degree College Bemina Srinagar by similar arrangements;

b. A order or direction on respondents to allow the continuation of the petitioner's engagement as Faculty for the academic session 2026- 2027 and release his remuneration as prescribed.

c. Any other writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour ofthe petitioners and against the respondents.

2. What emerges from the pleadings made in the O.A. is that the applicant was engaged for a period of one year under the Academic Arrangeemnt for the Session 2026-27. To this effect, the applicant has annexed a photocopy of the Joining Status wherein he substantiates that the applicant has been selected as a Lecturer with merit points of 73.91 points and the joining deadline has been shown as 05 Aug 2026, 04:00 PM, and the joining status is shown as, 'Joined on 05 Aug 2026'.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after joining the applicant was continuing. However, from the month of October, the Principal of the College, has stopped the applicant from making his biometric attendance without assigning any reason. He submits that the applicant approached the Principal concerned for seeking reason, as to why the applicant is not being allowed to mark his biometric attendance and further submits that when otherwise in law, the arrangement of the applicant could have not been replaced by a similar arrangement. He submits that the applicant has a reasonable apprehension that he will be replaced by a similar arrangement which law would not countenance.

4. It is no more res integra that if the competent authority feels at any point of time that there is any disability, what otherwise was required to be fulfilled by a candidate, he has every right to ask for it, and it is the duty of the candidate to fulfill the requisite norms, etc. However, what is incumbent in law for the competent authority is to back his action by reason.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in terms of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of J&K in the case titled as Saika Hassan v. Govt. of J&K (WP(C) No. 3027/2024) decided on 28.10.2026 by the Hon'ble High Court, the services of the applicant cannot be replaced by a similar arrangment. To this effect, he has also referred to the celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as Piara Singh v. Union of India and Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana.

6. Heard.

7. Issue notice. Mr. Satinder Singh, learned AAG, appears and accepts notices for the respondents, who is granted four weeks' time to file his response. In the meanwhile, subject to objections of the other side and in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of J&K and the Hon'ble Apex Court, the applicant shall not be replaced by a similar arrangement, subject to the condition that there is no legal impediment in continuing the services of the applicant in terms of his order of engagement.

8. List on 29.12.2026. Prasant Kumar Member (A) M. S. Latif Member (J) Abhishek Punia ( court master )