1. Service write petitions 139/01 and 812/01 came to be filed in quick succession by one Mst. Zahida Bano. In 439/01 it is averred by her that the Deputy Commissioner Kupwara (for short DC) is hell bent to appoint respondent No. 6 namely Miss Nighat as teacher for extraneous considerations in contravention of the scheme called Rehbar-e-Taleem (for short scheme) notwithstanding the fact that she lacks eligibility, for, she is neither a resident of the village where vacancy is available nor is resident of the adjoining village. The said writ petition came up for consideration before the Single Bench on 16/04/2001. Having considered SWP NO. 439/2001: Zahida Banoo D/o Muhammad Yousuf R/o Tangdhar Nad Butangi, Tehsil Karanh, District Kupwara, Age 23 years. ...Petitioner. Vs 1. State of J&K through Commr/Secy to Govt. Education Department, Civil Sectt. Srinagar/Jammu. 2. Director School Education Kashmir Srinagar. 3. Zonal Education Officer, Tangdhar. 4. Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara. .... Respondents. SWP NO. 812/2001: Zahida Banoo D/o Muhammad Yosuf R/o Tangdhar Nad Butangai Tehsil Karnah District Kupwara. Age 23 years. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. State of J&K through Commr/ Secy to Govt. Education Department, Civil Sectt, Srinagar/Jammu. 2. Director School Education Kashmir, Srinagar. 3. Chief Education Officer, Kupwara. 4. Zonal Education Officer, Tangdhar. 5. Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara. 6. Nighat Parveen W/o Gias Ud Din R/o Nowpora, Tehsil, Karnah, District Kupwara. .... Respondents. that matter interim relief came to be granted in favour of the petitioner requiring the respondents to offer appointment to her if she is better qualified in comparison to other eligible candidates and is possessed of requisite eligibility in terms of the scheme with further direction not to make appointment of a candidate who does not belong to village Butangi/Nad. In spite of unambiguous direction the DC chose to approve of the appointment of the respondent 6 vide order No. DCK/PS/A/552-56 dated 28.05.2001. The order of the DC being in violation of the direction of the Court, the Zonal Education Officer (for short ZEO) who is the appointing authority under the scheme did not implement the order issued by the DC. The ZEO neither issued the order of appointment in favour of respondent 6 nor did he allow her to join which fact is evidenced by para 2 of the statement of fact filed by the ZEO, consequently, the interim direction passed by the Court, remained effectively operative. The ZEO neither issued the order of appointment in favour of respondent 6 nor did he allow her to join which fact is evidenced by para 2 of the statement of fact filed by the ZEO, consequently, the interim direction passed by the Court, remained effectively operative. The ZEO also brought the matter to the notice of the Director School Education (for short Director). 2. To appreciate the role assigned to the Director by the scheme the relevant para of the scheme may be noticed: "The Director School Education shall be personally responsible to ensure that these instructions are carried out in letter and spirit." The language used in the para makes it abundantly clear that the Director has a very important role to perform that is to ensure implementation of the scheme in its letter and spirit and it is the mandate of the scheme which has apparently persuaded the Director to rise to the occasion through his communication bearing No.DSEK/TA/1/2001/532-34 dated 11.06.2001 (annexure C to the contempt petition) addressed to the DC which reads: "On my recent visit to Tehsil Karnah few days back, it was brought to my notice at Tanghdar that you have asked the Chief Education Officer, Kupwara to appoint one Smt. Nighat Begum W/o Gias Ud Din R/o Nowpora, Tanghdar as Rehbar-e-Taleem for Government Boys Primary School, Naad Batungi, Tanghdar vide your No.DCK/PS/A/552-56 dated 28.05.2001. I could see on spot that Village Naad, Botangi is more than 3½ kilimetres away from the Nowpora, Tanghdar to which place the candidate Smt. Nighat Begum belongs. Village Naad Botungi does not have a motorable road and the candidate if appointed would have to foot a one way distance of 3½ kilometres uphill daily. It was represented to me that there are candidates namely Zahida Banoo D/o Mohd Yousuf R/o Naad Tanghdar had filed a writ petition in the Honble High Court. The other candidate namely Smt. Nighat Begum W/o Gias Ud Din R/o Nowpora Tanghdar has also filed a writ petition in the Honble High court which has been disposed off. Both these cases have been disposed off by you in the order under reference. It may be pointed out that the Honble High Court has ordered clearly in SWP No.439/2001 & CMP No. 742/2001 in the case titled Zahida Bano Vs. Both these cases have been disposed off by you in the order under reference. It may be pointed out that the Honble High Court has ordered clearly in SWP No.439/2001 & CMP No. 742/2001 in the case titled Zahida Bano Vs. State and others "that appointment shall not be made of any person who does not hail from the village Naad Batungi Tehsil Karnah district Kupwara." It seems that the approval conveyed by you for engagement of one Smt, Nighat Begum W/o Gias Ud Din R/o Nowpora, Tanghdar as mentioned above is in clear contravention of the above quoted orders of the Honble High Court. It may also be mentioned that appointment of Zahida Banoo was recommended by MLA concerned also on the ground that she hails from the hamlet where the school is actually situated as other candidates from village Tanghdar may not work punctually due to border location of the school. It appears that decision of engaging Nighat has been taken on the ground that Naad Botungi is a part of the reneue village Tanghdar. It may, however, be clarified that the guidelines issued by the Government for engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem do not define the village as the "Revenue Village" any where and the word village has been used as it exists in common parlance. This would otherwise, defeat the very purpose of the Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme by engaging candidates from distant areas on the pretext of belonging to the same revenue Village. In the above context, you are requested kindly to have fresh look in the case and pass appropriate orders at the earliest." 3. The Director while registering his concern conveyed to the DC that appointment of respondent 6 was not in the interests of the school, clarifying further that the words "revenue village are unknown to the scheme. The clarification by the Director should have clinched the issue but the DC did not choose to go by the accurate advice of the Director. Situation is conceivable where Director would have erred by taking a stand in breach of the scheme but in such eventuality, the option for the DC was to refer the matter to the Government and not to take a decision on his own. Situation is conceivable where Director would have erred by taking a stand in breach of the scheme but in such eventuality, the option for the DC was to refer the matter to the Government and not to take a decision on his own. However, such state of affair has not moved the Government although the Director has endorsed the communication aforementioned to the Principal Secretary to Government Eduction Department and inaction on the part of the Government has landed the controversy in the court resuiting in multiplicity of proceedings in the form of contempt petition, besides a subsequent service writ petition 812/2001 challenging the DCs approval. Alongside a CMP was filed which received consideration of the court and in essence earlier interim direction was reiterated, yet DC did not undo the approval/appointment. Being fully alive to the ambit of the scheme which excludes respondent 6 from consideration zone the DC has made an abortive attempt to overcome the bar by making reference to the guidelines. For ready reference, the relevant paras of the impugned approval may be noticed: "... Whereas as per guidelines the village has to be taken as a Unit for making engagements. Whereas Botungi and Nad are not separate villages but are parties of Revenue Village Tangdhar. Whereas keeping in view the guidelines framed on the subject and merit of the candidates, approval to the engagement of Nighat Parveen W/o Gias Ud Din R/o Tanghdhar being the most meritorious candidate is hereby given." 4. It transpires from the above extracted paras that there are guidelines which confer a right of the consideration on the resident of a revenue village which is composed of several paties and on this hypothesis the DC has offered appointment to the respondent 6 which standi is controverted by the Director in many words. Having noticed the conflicting stand of the DC and the Director. It was deemed proper to direct the Principal Secretary to Government Education Department to take a stand who opted for a stance substantiating the stand of the DC. Having noticed the conflicting stand of the DC and the Director. It was deemed proper to direct the Principal Secretary to Government Education Department to take a stand who opted for a stance substantiating the stand of the DC. Responding to the situation the LC for the petitioner drew our attention to the stand of the Government taken in opposition to the writ petitions SWP 558/2001 and SWP 1132/2001 wherein while dealing with the eligibility in respect of residence the Government has averred: "He or she should belong to the village where there is assessed deficiency of staff on the certification of the VLC that no local candidate from within the village is available, the VLC can draw a panel from the adjoining village." 5. Stand so taken by the respondents having prevailed on the Court, consequently, dismissal of the Writ petition. Being unmindful of the abovesaid decisions, the Principal Secretary has supported the DCs stand depicting that in terms of the scheme eligibility accrues to a candidate on the basis of residence with reference to "paties" and "revenue village". Well if this is the correct stand the State is guilty of having made a false statement before the Court in the decided writ petitions and if there are any guidelines to that effect those have to be brought before the court so that same are scrutinized judicially in the light of the earlier and present stance of the respondent-State. Smelling that such stance would call for judicial scrutiny of the scheme as a whole which may cause embarrassment to the Government the Principal Secretary Education Department has salvaged the situation by filing yet another affidavit stating therein that the scheme has not undergone any amendment and no guidelines other than the scheme have been issued by the Government. The DC too has backed out his earlier stand and admitted the ground reality to which effect a statement was made before the Court by his counsel on 07.09.2001 asserting: ". there is no other scheme/ guidelines excepting the one issued by the Government vide order No. 396-Edu of 2001 dated 28.04.2001 and Edu/Plan-184/2000 dated 17.02.2000....." 6. The DC was also asked to produce the record which would show composition of villages in the form of paties but no record was produced. On the contrary learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Educational Map. The DC was also asked to produce the record which would show composition of villages in the form of paties but no record was produced. On the contrary learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Educational Map. Its perusal reveals that Tangdhar is a zone comprising of seven villages namely Nad, Butangi, Nowpora, Shathpala, Suleman Loontha and Vakhayan having eleven schools identified by village name. Botangi and Nad are adjoining each other. The map which has relevance for appointments in the Education Department under the scheme does not mention paties or unit. Apart from that no record is brought to our notice which would show appointments having been made by the DC pati-wise or on the basis of expression revenue village. Significantly, the correctness of map is not disputed. 7. It is crystal clear that no guidelines were ever issued by the Government which would envisage eligibility on the basis of residence in relation to paties or revenue village and to test ones eligibility scheme has to guide. 8. We have thoroughly gone through the scheme. The objective for introducing the scheme as gathered from its provisions is to make the schools effectively functional so that educational standard of the children of the villages is improved. The object appears laudable. How far the Government has succeeded in achieving that objective, we refrain from expression of opinion for the simple reason that it is beyond the scope of these writ petitions. We would now like to advert to the eligibility clause as it exists in the scheme which may be noticed: "ELIGIBILITY: i) Rehbar-e-Taleem should be permanent resident of the State. ii) He or she should belong to the village where there is assessed deficiency of staff. On the certificate of VLC that no local candidate from the village is available, the VLC can draw up the panel 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 VLCs to the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes. 9. 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 VLCs to the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes. 9. It goes without saying that cardinal principal of law is that as long as there is not ambiguity in the statory language, resort to any interpretative process to unfold the intent of the statute maker becomes impermissible and the statutes have to be understood in their grammatical meaning. The grammatical construction being very clear and manifest one fails to understand as to what prompted the DC to stretch the definition of word "village" that too when scheme does not confer upon him such power, so much so, he has miserably failed to come forward with an explanation much less satisfactory one. We find no justification whatsoever for the DC to have stretched the amplitude of the word village. The interpretation advanced by him is not only dehors the context of the scheme but it makes the scheme unworkable. It does not stand the test of rationality and if allowed to sustain, it is bound to lead to absurd results and may defeat the true intent of the scheme. 10. The phraseology employed in drafting the clause in explicit and admits no ambiguity in deducing that the word " VILLAGE" has to be understood in popular English parlance and such reading makes it clear that right of consideration for engagement flows to the State subjects belonging to the Village where assessed deficiency exists and in absence of a local candidate to the inhabitants of the adjoining villages which is the only true interpreation and no other interpreation can be placed on the clause. 11. The admitted position is that the respondent 6 is not the resident of the village which has the deficiency nor does she belong to the adjoining village, therefore, ineligible for appointment, obviously, order of appointment/approval issued by the DC in favour of respondent 6 is liable to be set aside. 12. In the result, these writ petitions succeed. Impugned order bearing No. DCK/PS/A/552-56 dated 28.05.2001 is quashed with further direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on the post as per the policy of the Government. 12. In the result, these writ petitions succeed. Impugned order bearing No. DCK/PS/A/552-56 dated 28.05.2001 is quashed with further direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on the post as per the policy of the Government. As a corollary contempt petition which was awaiting disposal of writ petitions in terms of the order of the court date 20.09.2001 shall be listed for consideration next week.