Disposed

Mehnaz Akhter v. Ut of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary, School Education Department and Others

J&K HC14 Sept 2026WP(C)/2742/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition (C) No. 2742/2026, the petitioner, selected on a provisional merit list for a six-month Seasonal Education Volunteer post, complained of delay in receiving the engagement order due to objections. The High Court directed the respondents to dispose of objections expeditiously within one month and issue the engagement order if no legal impediment exists.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to dispose of objections within one month and issue the engagement order if no legal impediment exists.

Mehnaz Akhter Vs Ut of J and K Th Commissioner… — Education and Admissions | J&K HC (2026)

¶1

Serial No. 15

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

WP(C) No. 2742/2026 CM No. 6006/2026

¶4

Mehnaz Akhter

¶5

…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

¶6

Through: Mr. R. P. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocate

UT of J&K and ors.

.…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG with Ms. Jagmeet Kour, Advocate

¶11

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

¶12

ORDER

¶13

14.09.2026

¶14

The grievance projected by the petitioner in this writ petition is that despite she having been found most meritorious in the provisional merit list issued by the respondents in respect of Seasonal Education Volunteer pursuant to advertisement No. ZEOM/26/1282-84 dated 06.08.2026, the respondents are not issuing the engagement order in her favour.

¶15

It has been submitted that the engagement is seasonal in nature valid only for six months and the delay on the part of the respondents in issuing the engagement order in favour of the petitioner is causing great hardship to her.

¶16

On the last date of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the respondents was requested to get the feedback from the respondents about the status of the engagement order of the petitioner. Today, Mr. Raman Sharma, learned AAG, on instructions, has submitted that after the issuance of provisional merit list, some objections with regard

¶17

2 WP(C) No. 2742/2026

¶18

to engagement of the petitioner were received from the local public and the said objections are being verified by the respondents, which has resulted in delay in issuance of engagement order in favour of the petitioner.

¶19

In view of the limited nature of controversy involved in the present petition, the same can be disposed of by extending appropriate directions to the respondents.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to deal with and dispose of the objections, if any, received against the proposed engagement of the petitioner, most expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date a copy of this order is made available with the respondents and in case there is no legal impediment in issuance of the engagement order in favour of the petitioner, the respondents shall proceed to issue engagement order in her favour in accordance with law within the aforesaid period.

¶21

Disposed of .

¶22

(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE

¶23

Jammu 14.09.2026 Neha-II

¶24

NEHA KUMARI 2026.09.14 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mehnaz Akhter v. Ut of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary, School Education Department and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehnaz Akhter v. Ut of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary, School Education Department and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases