Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 451 (JK)

Zulfkar Ali v. State

2008-11-26

SUNIL HALI

body2008
1. The petitioner has challenged appointment of respondent No.4 as RET Teaching Guide in Govt. High School Gandoh. His grievance is that respondent No.4 has been appointed on the said post on the basis of Advertisement Notice issued on 10.04.2004 without the same having been circulated for general public. 2. The facts of the case are that two posts of RET Teaching Guides became available in Govt. High School, Gandoh. After due compliance with the procedure laid down in the RET Scheme, a select list of seven candidates was prepared by the Village Level Committee, in which the name of petitioner figured at S.No.3. Since only two posts were available to be filled up in Govt. High School , Gandoh, the first two candidates in the panel were selected. The person, namely, Surjit Singh, who figured at S.No.1 in the said select list resigned from the said post after he was absorbed in some other department, as a result of which the post occupied by him has fallen vacant. The recourse left to the respondents was either to appoint a person next in the panel or to re-advertise the post. 3. Respondents chose to re-advertise the post by issuing Notification No.1703-05 dated 12.01.2004. In pursuance to the aforementioned notification, the selection process was initiated and panel of 24 candidates was prepared. Respondent No.4 figured at S.No.1 in the said panel. It transpired that this vacancy was to be allotted to the S.T. category candidate. Consequently, one Ruksana Bano belonging to the said category was appointed as RET teaching guide in Govt. Primary School, Dhadar from the said panel. Thereafter, another notification came to be issued on 10.04.2004 for filling up two posts of RET Teaching Guides in Govt. Primary School, Dhadar. Respondent No.4 came to be appointed as such on the said school. It is her appointment which is being been questioned by the petitioner in the present petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The only question that has been raised by the petitioner is that earlier notification dated 10.04.2004 was not circulated for general public and the panel which was prepared in pursuance to the notification dated 12.01.2004 was operated upon. He states that no fresh selection was made by respondents after the issuance of notification dated 10.04.2004. 6. 5. The only question that has been raised by the petitioner is that earlier notification dated 10.04.2004 was not circulated for general public and the panel which was prepared in pursuance to the notification dated 12.01.2004 was operated upon. He states that no fresh selection was made by respondents after the issuance of notification dated 10.04.2004. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is lower in merit than respondent no.4 as reflected in the panel prepared by the respondents. The only grievance of the petitioner is that while preparing the subsequent panel, notification dated 10.04.2004 was not circulated for the general public. 7. On the other hand, respondents state that vide earlier notification dated 12.01.2004, the appointment made was of the person belonging to ST category. In response to Notification dated 10.04.2004, no applications were received by them, as a consequence whereof the panel already prepared by them in terms of earlier notification dated 12.01.2004 was operated upon in which respondent no.4 was at S.No. 1. 8. The argument of Mr. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner is catchy, but on a deeper scrutiny it reveals that the appointment of respondent no.4 was made strictly in accordance with the law. Assuming but not admitting that a fresh panel was required to be prepared in pursuance of aforementioned notification dated 10.04.2004, the method of computing the merit was the marks obtained by the person in the last examination. So if a fresh panel would have been prepared, even then respondent No.4 would have figured at S.No.4. The merit is the sole criteria for making appointment to the post of RET Teaching Guide or for that matter for any other post. The petitioner does not dispute the eligibility of respondent no.4 nor does he disputes her merit. All that which is seen is that notification dated 10.04.2004 was not circulated for the general public. This in my opinion would not alter the situation. The respondents have operated the panel which was prepared in pursuance of notification dated 12.01.2004, in which admittedly the petitioner figured at S.No.5 and respondent no.4 at S.No.1. It is not his case that he has not been considered. Otherwise also, respondents have stated that they have not received any application in pursuance of notification dated 10.04.2004, as a result of which they have considered the panel prepared in pursuance to earlier Notification dated 12.01.2004. It is not his case that he has not been considered. Otherwise also, respondents have stated that they have not received any application in pursuance of notification dated 10.04.2004, as a result of which they have considered the panel prepared in pursuance to earlier Notification dated 12.01.2004. I find no violation with this process of the respondents. Respondent no.4 is admittedly higher in merit than the petitioner. 9. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected CMP(s), if any.