Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Robkar vs Khalid Jahangir & Anr on 27 January, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Regular List
Serial No. 44
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
ROBSW No. 04/2023
c/w
CCP(S) No. 51/2022
ROBKAR
.....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Nigam Mehta, Advocate.
Vs
Khalid Jahangir & Anr.
.....Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Assisting Counsel
vice
Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
(27.01.2026)
01. The subject matter of the present case is the implementation of judgment dated 05.02.2020 passed by the writ court, whereby the Service Selection Board (in short, "SSB") was directed to give additional five points to the petitioner for her B.Ed qualification and recommend her name for appointment against the post of Teacher (Maths) under RBA category. The needful was to be done within four weeks from the date the certified copy of the judgment was to be provided to the SSB. It was also directed that Education Department shall, within a period of four weeks from the date of recommendation from the SSB, issue the appointment order in favour of the petitioner. It was further provided that appointment 2 ROBSW No. 04/2023 c/w CCP(S) No. 51/2022 of the petitioner against the post shall be retrospective with effect from the date the other candidates under RBA category have been appointed and the retrospective appointment was to qualify for all benefits except monetary benefits.
02. It seems that after a long-drawn struggle, the respondents have issued the appointment order in favour of the petitioner on 30.03.2024. The grievance of the petitioner is that her appointment has not been retrospective effect, as was directed by the writ court, and that because the respondents have consumed almost four years in implementing the judgment of the writ court, the petitioner has been denied monetary benefits of her appointment for all these years.
03. In their compliance report, the respondents have submitted that initially the recommendation was made by the SSB pursuant to the direction of the writ court on 16.08.2021, which was forwarded to the appointing authority, but later on, the Service Selection Board (SSB) filed SLP before the Supreme Court in similarly situated cases and the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner was kept in abeyance.
04. It has been further submitted that on 11.02.2022 the SLP filed by the Service Selection Board was dismissed by the Supreme Court and the recommendation dated 16.08.2021 was revived in terms of communication dated 22.08.2023. It is only 3 ROBSW No. 04/2023 c/w CCP(S) No. 51/2022 thereafter that appointing authority has issued appointment order in favour of the petitioner on 30.03.2024.
05. The question whether the respondents are justified in consuming four years in implementing the judgment of the writ court is a matter which is required to be deliberated upon but one thing is clear that the respondents were obliged to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner retrospectively from the date the other candidates in the RBA category were appointed. This has not been done by the respondents, while issuing appointment order in his favour.
06. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to modify the appointment order issued in favour of the petitioner on 30.03.2024 so as to bring it in consonance with the judgment of the writ court and produce a copy of the said order before this Court on the next date of hearing, failing which coercive measures shall follow.
07. List on 18.02.2026.
(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 27.01.2026 Bunty Bunty Kumar 2026.01.29 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document