Facts
The applicants participated in a 2010 recruitment process for the post of Constable in the Jammu Kashmir Police but were not selected
Source reference: p. 3They approached the Hon’ble High Court in SWP No. 2213/2018, which directed the respondents to consider their case in light of Mohammad Maqbool Wani Ors. v. State of JK
Source reference: p. 3-4The matter was later transferred to the CAT as T.A. No. 167/2022
Source reference: p. 4Despite subsequent directions in M.A. No. 652/2024 and O.A. No. 1083/2025 to consider the applicants' claims based on additional qualifications and parity with similarly situated candidates, the respondents issued Order No. 524 of 26 on 13.02.2026, rejecting their representation
Source reference: p. 4-5The applicants challenged this rejection, alleging it was based on an incorrect assessment of their qualifications
Source reference: p. 5Issues
Whether the impugned Order No. 524 of 26 dated 13.02.2026 is vitiated by non-application of mind due to a factual error regarding the applicants' qualifications.
Source reference: p. 5-6 / para. 8-10Law Applied
The Court applied the administrative law principle of "application of mind," which requires authorities to consider relevant facts and exclude irrelevant ones during decision-making
Source reference: p. 5-6It further relied on the principle of parity in public employment, referencing UT of JK vs. Abdul Ahad Pala (LPA No. 45/2021), which mandates equal treatment for similarly situated candidates
Source reference: p. 2-3Procedurally, the Court applied Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, to allow a joint application
Source reference: p. 2Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the impugned rejection order suffered from a significant factual error, indicating a "cursory, perfunctory manner and a slipshod way" of handling the matter
Source reference: p. 6The respondents had rejected the claim on the grounds that the applicants did not merit marks for a "Diploma in Computer Applications"; however, the applicants’ actual claim was based on a 312-hour training certificate and diploma in the "Plumbering Trade" from the Royal Polytechnic College, Srinagar
Source reference: p. 6The Court noted that the respondents failed to evaluate the actual certificates submitted by the applicants, thereby failing to comply with the previous judicial direction to consider the case on the same analogy as other candidates who received marks for technical qualifications
Source reference: p. 5-6Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. by directing the respondents to reconsider the applicants' cases
The respondents are specifically ordered to evaluate the "Plumber training" certificates instead of the "Diploma in Computer Applications" and take a decision within four weeks
Source reference: p. 6-7The Court clarified that it was not validating the authenticity or recognition of the training institute at this stage
Source reference: p. 7The M.A. for joint application was allowed, and no costs were awarded
Source reference: p. 2, 7Original Court PDF
Altaf hussain mirvsHOME DEPARTMENT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in