MANOHAR LAL AND ORS v. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (LAW DEPARTMENT) AND ORS
Court: High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Jammu and Kashmir judgment dated 2025-06-30. MANOHAR LAL AND ORS v. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (LAW DEPARTMENT) AND ORS. Read the judgment and...
Judgment text
Serial No. 07 REGULAR LIST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP (C) No. 1479/2025 CM No. 3803/2025 Manohar Lal & Ors …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Ms Bushra Zargar, Advocate Vs. Union Territory of J & K & Ors ... Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDE R 30. 06. 2025 1. In this petition, the petitioners have inter alia challenged Notification No. 05 of 2025/RG/NG-442(1) dated 02. 01. 2025 and, in alternative, the promotion Orders No. 595 & 598 of 2025/PSY dated 24. 04. 2025 to the extent of promotion of Data Entry Operators. On the same cause and on the same issue, the petitioners had earlier also approached this Court by way of WP(C) No.
1268/2025, which petition was dismissed as premature, leaving it open to the petitioners to file a fresh petition as and when promotions from the cadre of the Data Entry Operators are made to the post of Head Assistants and the petitioners are aggrieved by usurpation of their quota. 2. The instant petition has been filed after the promotion of respondents No. 5 & 8, who are Data Entry Operators and were promoted as Head Assistants. In this petition, no foundation has been laid to substantiate the allegation that the promotion of respondents No. 5 & 8 as Head Assistants is in violation of the quota prescribed in the Jammu & Kashmir Ministerial Staff of Subordinate Courts (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2016. Neither the sanctioned strength of Senior Assistants has been mentioned, nor is there any reference to the sanctioned strength of Data Entry Operators working in the District Judiciary.
It is pleaded that since two promotion orders have been issued, in the aforesaid orders the quota as prescribed under the Rules of 2016 has not been strictly adhered to. 3. We find the writ petition totally devoid of material particulars. In the absence of proper pleadings, the issue properly raised by the petitioners, the petition cannot be effectively adjudicated. This petition, on the face of it, is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. We, however, leave it open to the petitioners to file a fresh petition after placing on record the entire material, including the sanctioned strength of Senior Assistants, the sanctioned strength of the Data Entry Operators and the promotions to the post of Head Assistants made from these two sources. They shall specifically show as to how the quota earmarked for the Data Entry Operators has been violated. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 30. 06. 2025 “ARIF”
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.