Deployment cancellation stayed pending medical evaluation and representation consideration.

The applicant, Mudasir Wahab Lone, was initially appointed as Rahbar-i-Taleem in the School Education Department and subsequently regularized as Teacher-III on April 15, 2011.

Pursuant to a representation, he was attached to the office of the District Election Officer, Bandipora, vide order dated March 8, 2021.

His deployment/attachment was cancelled by an order dated February 19, 2026.

Following this cancellation, the applicant filed a representation on February 20, 2026, with the Chief Education Officer, Bandipora, requesting reconsideration on health grounds.

Respondent No. 3 directed the applicant to obtain a medical certificate from the competent District Medical Board, which the applicant applied for, and the board was expected to convene that week.

The applicant developed serious health issues and was advised by a doctor on March 9, 2026, to avoid heavy physical exertion until proper medical evaluation by the Medical Board.

The applicant sought a short period of protection until his medical examination and case evaluation.

Whether the respondents should be directed to treat the applicant's O.A. as a representation and reconsider the cancellation of his deployment/attachment on health-related grounds.

Whether interim protection should be granted against the impugned deployment order until the representation is considered.

The court primarily applied the principle of administrative discretion in considering representations and the need for reasoned orders, along with equitable considerations for individuals with health constraints, drawing parallels to previous decisions of the Tribunal in "identical facts and circumstances," specifically citing O.A. No. 149/2026 titled Raheela Khan versus School Education Department and Others, decided on February 22, 2026.

The court considered the applicant's plea to treat his O.A. as a representation, acknowledging his health concerns and the need for a medical board evaluation.

The court noted that a similar relief was granted in Raheela Khan v. School Education Department, where the applicant faced "identical health-related constraints," suggesting a precedent for equitable treatment.

Without delving into the merits of the cancellation order, the Tribunal opted for a limited intervention, directing the respondents to objectively review the representation, including the medical evidence (Annexure A-4), and ensure compliance with applicable rules.

The court further recognized the immediate and pending nature of the medical evaluation, justifying a temporary stay on the impugned order to prevent undue hardship while the administrative process was underway.

The respondents were mandated to pass a speaking and reasoned order within three weeks, provided no legal impediment exists.

Furthermore, the court granted interim relief, directing that the impugned deployment order dated February 19, 2026, shall not be given effect to for a period of three weeks, allowing the applicant to continue at Bandipora during this period.

No order as to costs was made.