Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 217 (JK)

Bilquees Akhtar v. State

2001-09-20

R.C.GANDHI

body2001
1. Both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the petitioners seek their engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem in Primary School, Kanilab. 2. Petitioner Bilquees Akhtar, seeks a direction for her engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem on the ground that she is meritorious candidate and her merit had been determined by the Village Level Committee showing her at Sr.No. 1 of the Penal prepared. Petitioner, Amina Rafiq, also claims her engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem on the same ground. Another ground taken in SWP No. 1585/2001 is that since there was no candidate available from the village where the school is located, both the petitioners have been considered being the candidates belonging to the adjoining villages, the petitioner Bilquees Akhtar has the prior right of appointment on the basis of merit and being her village situated near i.e. half a kilometer to the School than of the village of petitioner Amina Rafiq which is at the distance of two and half kilometers. 3. Mr. Kawoosa, learned AAG has filed the objections on behalf of the official respondents stating therein that since no local candidate was available from the village where the school is located and in terms of the scheme promulgated vide Government Order No. 396-Edu. of 200 dated 28-04-2000, both the petitioners have been considered. Petitioner, Amina Rafiq, has been found meritorious securing 38 marks is entitled to be appointed as Rehbar-e-Taleem. 4. Petition is admitted to hearing and taken up for disposal at the request of learned counsel for the parties. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Mr. A.M. Dar, learned counsel representing petitioner Bilquees Akhtar has submitted that the petitioner has been placed at Sr. No. 1 in the select penal, according to her merit. To make out, he has shown a Photostat copy of the list framed by Zonal Education Officer, which is directed to be placed on record and marked for identification as Annexure-CA. Perusal of this list reveals that petitioner Bilquees Akhtar has been shown at Sr. No. 1 whereas petitioner Amina Rafiq at Sr. No. 3. In column 9 of this list marks secured have been shown. Bilquees Akhtar has secured 37 marks whereas Amina Rafiq secured 38 marks. Amina Rafiq has been shown at Sr. No. 3 of the list. Merely placing Bilquees Akhtar at Sr. No. 1 whereas petitioner Amina Rafiq at Sr. No. 3. In column 9 of this list marks secured have been shown. Bilquees Akhtar has secured 37 marks whereas Amina Rafiq secured 38 marks. Amina Rafiq has been shown at Sr. No. 3 of the list. Merely placing Bilquees Akhtar at Sr. No. 1 does not mean that she has been placed according to the merit.It is further seen from this list that at Sr. No. 2 Gulam Mohammad Bhat has been shown who has secured 39.3 marks. Therefore, it is clear from the list that the placement of the petitioner and respondent is not according to merit. Merit has been shown in column 9 which makes out that Amina Rafiq is meritorious as she has secured 38 marks. 7. Another plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.M. Dar is that according to the scheme promulgated vide Government Order dated: 28-04-2000, petitioner Bilquees Akhtar has prior right of her engagement as her Village being adjoining is situated nearer to the Village where school is located, being half kilometer away. To make out this, he has relied upon the eligibility part contained in the Government Order dated: 28-04-2000 which is reproduced hereunder:-"Eligibility i) Rehbar-e-Taleem should be the resident of the State. ii) He or she should belong to the Village where there is assessed deficiency of staff. On the certification of VIC that no local candidate from within the Village is available, VIC can draw up the penal from the adjoining village, iii) He or she should possess the minimum qualification of 10+2 iv) The candidate shall as far as possible fulfill the age qualification as prescribed by the State Government, v) Due consideration shall be given by the VICs to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes." 8. Perusal of the above extracted para does not contain any provision to make out that a candidate belonging to the adjoining village is having prior right of engagement if the adjoining village is situated nearer to the school. This argument, therefore, is rejected, being not made out. 9. The scheme provides that where there is no local candidate from the village where the school is located, the Village Level Committee will draw the penal from the adjoining village. This argument, therefore, is rejected, being not made out. 9. The scheme provides that where there is no local candidate from the village where the school is located, the Village Level Committee will draw the penal from the adjoining village. The adjoining village, according to the dictionary meaning, is the "be next to and joined with." If a village is surrounded by four villages, all these are adjoining villages. The distance is therefore irrelevant. Surrounding villages i.e. adjoining villages may be at the distance of 2 or 4 kilometers. The adjoining villages, therefore, cannot be said to be only the village nearer to the village for purpose of the scheme. It is the next village. If the only adjoining village is seen from a particular direction, it will be the next village from that direction. Therefore, the distance is irrelevant. If the plea of the petitioner is accepted that only a candidate belonging to the village situated nearer to the school is to be considered, in that event the candidates of the other adjoining villages will never get a chance of consideration. The candidates from both the villages have been considered and one penal is prepared to determine merit. The selection made, therefore, does not warrant interference. For the aforesaid reason, the writ petition of petitioner Amina Rafiq in allowed and writ petition of Bilquees Akhtar is dismissed.