Partly allowed¶18

Kirandeep Singh v. Ut of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs and Others

J&K HC1 Dec 2025WP(C)/3371/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kirandeep Singh v. Union Territory of J&K and others; WP(C) 3371/2025; High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu; Central Administrative Tribunal Jammu; TA 3395/2021; Assistant Storekeeper-cum-Clerk; Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Department; Notification No. 09 of 2010 dated 30.12.2010; denial of due opportunity of hearing; natural justice; set aside and remand for fresh disposal; merits not examined.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 11.07.2025 set aside; matter remanded to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu for fresh disposal in accordance with law after affording opportunity of being heard to the affected parties; no direction issued on the petitioner's appointment claim and merits left unexamined. ¶18

Kirandeep Singh Vs Ut of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs and Others — J&K HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

Uploaded on 03.12.2025 CJ Court

¶4

WP(C) No. 3371/2025

¶5

Kirandeep Singh …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

¶6

Through: Mr. Achal Sharma, Adv.

¶7

¶8

Union Territory of J&K and others

¶9

.…. Respondent(s)

¶10

Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG with Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Adv.

¶11

Coram: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

¶12

ORDER 01.12.2025

¶13

The petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in TA No. 3395/2021, whereby the Transferred Application preferred by the petitioner for quashing the selection of respondent No. 4 & 5 as Assistant Storekeepers-cum-Clerks in the Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Department pursuant to Notification No. 09 of 2010 dated 30.12.2010 and for commanding the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner against the post of Assistant Storekeeper-cum-Clerk, has been dismissed.

¶14

It is urged that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 did not figure in the list of candidates shortlisted for interview and that the order impugned has been passed by the learned Tribunal in absence of the petitioner. He has further submitted

¶15

that respondent Nos. 4 and 5, despite service, did not choose to appear before the learned Tribunal.

¶16

Notice, waived by Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. As the learned Tribunal has passed the order impugned in absence of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who despite service, did not choose to appear before the Tribunal as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not deem it necessary to issue notice to respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶17

The impugned order indicates that the learned Tribunal, after examining the record, has observed that the petitioner has obtained lesser marks than respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Crucially, the findings have been recorded by the learned Tribunal in absence of the petitioner, thus, amounting to denial of due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶18

Considering the above, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order dated 11.07.2025 and remand the matter to the learned Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of being heard to the affected parties. Ordered accordingly .

¶19

Needless to say, that we have not examined the merits of the claims of the contesting parties and have passed this order solely on the ground that the petitioner was not heard when the impugned order was passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶20

(RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶21

Jammu 01.12.2025 Rakesh

¶22

Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

¶23

Rakesh Kumar 2025.12.03 13:45WP(C) No. 3371/2025 Page 2 of 2 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kirandeep Singh v. Ut of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kirandeep Singh v. Ut of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Champa Devi and Anr. Vs Gulab Chand and Ors.

Union of India Th Its Secretary Ministry of Defence New Delhi and Others Vs Balwant Singh

State Th.Education Deptt.and Ors. Vs Gulab Chand and Ors.

Union Territory of J and K and Anr. (Home) Vs Sahil Farooq Mir

Ut of Jk through Additional Chief Secretary Finance Department Vs Madan Lal and Another

Jai Ganesh Disposals Th Sudesh Kumar Sawhney Vs National Hydro-Electric Power Corporation Ltd. and Others