Respondents must consider the application as a representation and issue a reasoned decision within eight weeks, without prejudging merits.

The applicant, a former Lecturer in Physics at Government Degree College, Anantnag, claimed that he was initially engaged in 1994 and was removed from service in violation of the order dated 9 September 1998 passed in SWP No. 2224/1997.

He contended that his service ought to be treated as continuous from 1994 and that, following his re-engagement in 2008, he had completed seven years of service by 2015, thereby becoming eligible for regularization.

The applicant relied on the Division Bench judgment dated 30 August 2025 in Syed Tariq Ahmad & Others v. Union Territory of J&K & Others, W.P.(C) No. 416/2024 and connected matters, concerning regularization of persons engaged against clear vacancies before commencement of the J&K Special Provisions Act, 2010.

The Principal, Government Degree College, Anantnag, thereafter forwarded the applicant’s documents to the Nodal Principal on 20 June 2026, but no decision was allegedly taken.

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking regularization, treatment of the period from 2000 to 2008 as service, release of consequential benefits, pensionary benefits and implementation of the aforesaid High Court judgment.

1. Whether the applicant’s claims for regularization, continuity of service, consequential monetary benefits and pensionary benefits were required to be considered by the competent authority in light of the applicable rules and the Division Bench judgment dated 30 August 2025?

2. Whether the Original Application could be disposed of by treating it as a representation and directing the respondents to pass a reasoned decision within a specified time?

3. Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the merits of the applicant’s entitlement at this stage?

The Tribunal applied the principle stated in Syed Tariq Ahmad & Others v. Union Territory of J&K & Others, W.P.(C) No. 416/2024 and connected matters, namely, that persons appointed against clear vacancies before commencement of the J&K Special Provisions Act, 2010, and continuously engaged for more than seven years, could not be excluded from consideration for regularization, subject to their engagement being against substantive vacant posts.

The Tribunal further directed application of the rules and law governing the field, including the applicant’s eligibility, entitlement, applicable conditions, and the existence or absence of any legal impediment.

Where parties consent to disposal of an original application as a representation, the competent authority may be directed to consider the claim and pass a comprehensive, reasoned and speaking order without the Tribunal expressing any opinion on the merits.

The Tribunal did not determine whether the applicant’s engagement was against a substantive vacant post, whether his service from 1994 or 2000 to 2008 could legally be treated as continuous, or whether he was otherwise eligible for regularization and consequential benefits.

Instead, noting the parties’ agreement, it treated the O.A. as a representation.

The respondents were directed to examine the applicant’s assertions, the documents annexed to the O.A., the 30 August 2025 High Court judgment, and all applicable rules and eligibility conditions.

The direction was expressly made subject to the applicant’s entitlement and to the absence of any legal impediment.

The respondents were required to pass a comprehensive, detailed and speaking order within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The Tribunal clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits and left all questions of fact and law open for determination by the competent authority.

Parties were directed to bear their own costs.