Application for Vocational Instructor Dress Making directed to be treated as representation.

The applicant, Shivani Sharma, filed Original Application No. 86 of 2026 seeking various reliefs related to the post of Vocational Instructor Dress Making.

The J&K SSB had issued advertisement notification No. 02 of 2008 dated 25.04.2008 for three posts of Vocational Instructor Dress Making (Item No. 034) under the Open Merit Category.

Only two forms were received, and the applicant underwent an interview process after a list of candidates and interview date (26.06.2008) were published.

While candidates awaited results, one Varinder Kour filed SWP No. 883/2008 before the Hon'ble High Court of J&K at Jammu.

On 25.06.2008, the High Court directed that Varinder Kour be allowed to participate in the selection process at her own risk, with her result not to be declared without court permission.

This case was later transferred to the Tribunal, re-numbered as T.A. No. 7491/2020, and was dismissed on 02.09.2021 due to the non-appearance of the applicant (Varinder Kour).

The present applicant's grievance is that despite the dismissal of the related case, her result and that of other candidates who appeared for the interview have not been declared by the Service Selection Board (SSB) under the pretext of the initial High Court order.

The applicant continuously submitted representations but received no resolution.

The Miscellaneous Application No. 101 of 2026 for condonation of delay in filing the O.A. was allowed.

Whether the respondents, specifically respondent no. 3 and 4 (Chairman and Secretary, Service Selection Board), should be directed to declare the result of the applicant for the post of Vocational Instructor Dress Making (Item No. 035) advertised vide notification No. 02 of 2008 dated 25.04.2008.

Whether the respondents should be directed to recommend the applicant's name and issue an appointment order for the said post.

Whether the applicant should be granted retrospective benefits including notional appointment, seniority, pay fixation, and other service-related benefits.

Whether the applicant's Original Application should be treated as a representation and decided by the respondents within a time-bound manner.

The court's decision was based on the administrative procedure for addressing grievances from applicants where a selection process has been held up.

The principle applied was to ensure that a representation by an aggrieved party is considered and decided by the competent authority in a time-bound and reasoned manner.

This is a common practice for tribunals and courts when a detailed examination of the merits is not immediately undertaken, and the primary relief sought is the consideration of an existing grievance by the concerned administrative body.

The Tribunal noted the limited prayer made by the applicant's counsel, which was for a direction to the respondents to treat a copy of the Original Application as a representation and decide the matter by issuing a reasoned and speaking order within a specified timeframe.

The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case, such as the applicant's eligibility for the post or the legality of withholding results.

Instead, it focused on the administrative duty of the respondents to address the applicant's long-standing grievance regarding the non-declaration of results, especially after the dismissal of the related High Court matter.

By directing the respondents to consider the O.A. as a representation, the Tribunal ensured that the applicant's concerns would be officially reviewed and decided upon, without prejudice to the ultimate outcome.

This approach allows the administrative authorities to make the initial determination, which is standard procedure before judicial intervention on merits.

It issued a direction to the respondents to treat a copy of the Original Application as the applicant's representation and to decide the case by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

A copy of the speaking order must also be communicated to the applicant.

There were no orders as to costs.