Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on Thursday granted Prof. Shakeel Ahmad Ramshoo, Vice-Chancellor of the Islamic University of Science and Technology (IUST), and other administrators two weeks’ time to file a statement of facts and compliance before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Srinagar, in contempt proceedings arising out of a dispute over the appointment of a Librarian.
The order was passed by a Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani while disposing of a writ petition filed by Prof. Ramshoo and another petitioner challenging the Tribunal’s proceedings initiated for alleged non-compliance with its interim order.
The controversy relates to an interim order passed by the CAT on June 2, 2026, in an application filed by Sheikh Mohammad Imran. The Tribunal had directed the petitioners to maintain the applicant’s position and status as Librarian in terms of his appointment order dated January 17, 2025.
The High Court noted that the Tribunal’s interim order had earlier been challenged before it through a writ petition, which was disposed of on July 4, 2026.
While declining to interfere with the interim directions, the court had directed the University not to extend the applicant’s lien beyond September 2026 unless such extension was permissible under the applicable rules.
The Tribunal had also been requested to make an endeavour to decide the original application, or at least the application for interim relief, within two months.
Observing that the Tribunal’s interim order continues to remain operative, the Division Bench held that the petitioners were legally bound to comply with it unless it was modified or vacated by the competent forum.
The court cautioned that the pendency of the original application or the interim relief application did not dilute the binding nature of the interim directions.
In a strongly worded observation, the bench remarked that if the petitioners believed they were not required to comply with the Tribunal’s order until the original proceedings were decided, “they are living in a fool’s paradise.”
At the same time, the court observed that while the Tribunal had acted promptly in seeking compliance, it had not granted the petitioners a reasonable opportunity to place their statement of facts on record before initiating coercive measures.
It also noted that the petitioners themselves had failed to respond with the promptness expected of them.
Balancing the interests of justice, the High Court granted Prof. Ramshoo and the co-petitioner two weeks to file their compliance report before the Tribunal.
It directed the CAT to take up the matter on August 3, 2026, and pass appropriate orders after considering the compliance statement.
Until then, the petitioners have been exempted from personal appearance before the Tribunal, and the writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
