Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 600 (JK)

Gh. Hassan Khan v. State

2009-12-02

MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR

body2009
1. A post of third teacher guide was to be filled up in Government Primary School Hatipora, in view of the orders passed by the Chief Education Officer (CEO) Anantnag vide No. 13881 dated 04th July 2006. Zonal Education Officer Yaripora, issued advertisement notice on 15th July 2006, inviting applications for filling up of posts besides some other schools in Government Primary School Hatipora as well. In the advertisement notification it was provided that the candidate who will seek consideration for engagement as Re-T in Primary School Hatipora, must be graduate. It was also provided in the notification, that if no graduate for engagement of third teacher is available in revenue village then Panchayat Halqa will be taken as unit for such selection. 2. Petitioner responded to the said notification though he did not belong to village Halqa where the school was located and the post of third teacher was to be filled up. Petitioner belonged to village Munad Guffan which according to the pleadings of the writ petition falls within the Panchyat Halqa in which village Hatipora also falls. On the allegations that respondents after issuance of advertisement notification did not proceed ahead with the selection process, SWP No. 76/07 was filed by the petitioner before this court, which petition was disposed of by the court vide its order dated 3rd Feb. 2007. The petition was disposed of with the direction to respondents to initiate the process of selection for the post of third teacher and consider petitioner also along with all other eligible candidates under law on his own merit, subject to eligibility. The ZEO Yaripora, issued advertisement notice No. ZEO/Y/365-67/07 dated 19.02.2007 inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up of the post(s) of third teacher in Primary School Hatipora, by following selection pattern as provided in Re-T scheme. It was specifically provided in the advertisement notice that applications for engagement of third teacher will be received only of those candidates who hail from revenue villages Hatipora. The ZEO Yaripora, issued order No. ZEO/Y/407-1/07 dated 24.02.2007. In the said order he gave details about the post of third teacher which had become available in Primary School Hatipora. Perusal of the said order reveals that for filling of the said post(s) advertisement notice dated 15th July 2006 was issued inviting applications from eligible candidates. The ZEO Yaripora, issued order No. ZEO/Y/407-1/07 dated 24.02.2007. In the said order he gave details about the post of third teacher which had become available in Primary School Hatipora. Perusal of the said order reveals that for filling of the said post(s) advertisement notice dated 15th July 2006 was issued inviting applications from eligible candidates. Village Education Committee (VEC) Hatipora objected to framing of the panel comprising of the candidates from panchayat halqa of which petitioner was one of the aspirants. In view of the objections raised by V.E.C Hatipora, the matter was brought to the notice of the Chief Education Officer Anantnag vide communication No. ZEO/Y/2443/06 dated 9th August 2006. The CEO vide its No. 20929/06 dated 29th August 2006 desired for submitting of fresh panel as per the norms of the Re-T Scheme. In pursuance of the said communication the post was re-advertised in terms of the impugned advertisement notice. The order further reveals that the claim of the petitioner has been considered in pursuance of the court orders and same rejected as he did not belong to the jevenue village Hatipora. 3. Reply affidavit/objections have not been filed by the respondents. 4. Mr. J.A. Kawoosa, Id. AAG, sought short adjournment for filing of reply affidavit/objections to which ld. counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.A. Makroo objected to and sought consideration and disposal of the writ petition, as Id. counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case, its disposal cannot brooked further delay. The learned counsel for the petitioner insisted for considerations of the matter without giving any further opportunity to the respondents to file reply affidavit/objections. It is in this back drop this petition is being heard and considered. 5. Mr. Makroo, Id. counsel for petitioner submitted that after issuance of advertisement notice in 2006, the respondents were duty bound to take the selection process to its logical conclusion in pursuance of the said notice. Ld counsel further submitted that advertisement notice impugned in this petition has been issued for mala-fide purposes so as to confer benefits on some candidates. It is further submitted by Id. counsel for petitioner, that petitioner is about to cross the upper age limit fixed for seeking entry into government service, and this is petitioners last hope to seek employment. Ld counsel further submitted that advertisement notice impugned in this petition has been issued for mala-fide purposes so as to confer benefits on some candidates. It is further submitted by Id. counsel for petitioner, that petitioner is about to cross the upper age limit fixed for seeking entry into government service, and this is petitioners last hope to seek employment. Ld counsel also referred to Re-T Scheme to indicate that when an eligible candidate is not available in the village then the candidate from the adjacent village is to be considered for being selected/engaged as third teacher guide. Ld. counsel, accordingly, prayed for passing of appropriate orders. 6. The Re-T Scheme was conceptualized to cater to the requirement of schools at gross root level. The purpose underlying the said scheme was to identify the deficiency in a school and then to supply the said deficiency. It was thought proper to restrict the zone of consideration for supplying such deficiency from the village where the school was located. The purpose was to ensure that the teacher does not remain absent from his duties and the students do not suffer on account of absence of the teacher. Under Re-T Scheme the V.L.C/V.E.C was constituted not only to prepare merit panel but also to over-see the performance of teaching guides. The whole purpose of launching the Re-T Scheme was to localize the control of schools. 7. In view of the purpose under-lying the scheme the effort was to find out an eligible candidate from the village in which the school was located and deficiency was to be supplied. The Re-T Scheme has been since wound-up by the Government. The schools are being upgraded and new schools are created under S.S.A. Scheme but in terms of government orders the selection/engagement to the post(s) available therein is to be made on the pattern of Re-T Scheme. The effort of the authorities has to ensure that the post which is available and is required to be filled up, is to be filled up by considering the candidates of the village where the vacancy is to be supplied. The V.E.C being an essential component of this process of selection, due weight is to be given to their views. The effort of the authorities has to ensure that the post which is available and is required to be filled up, is to be filled up by considering the candidates of the village where the vacancy is to be supplied. The V.E.C being an essential component of this process of selection, due weight is to be given to their views. In this case when the advertisement notice was issued in 2006, V.E.C raised objection for framing of the panel as they never wanted the outsider should be appointed/engaged to the post of teaching guide in their village. The matter was considered at the higher level by superior authorities and directions were issued that a fresh panel be prepared as per norms of Re-T Scheme. In order to effectuate the intendment of the higher authorities and achieve the purpose under-lying the Re-T Scheme fresh advertisement notice has been issued in February 2007. Petitioner on the terms and conditions of said advertisement notice is not eligible candidate and cannot seek consideration for being engaged/appointed as teacher. The argument of the Id counsel for the petitioner that the process for selection initiated in terms of advertisement notice of 2006 was delayed for malafide reasons, falls-flat on the reason that by issuance of the fresh advertisement notice none of the legal rights of the petitioner are infringed. Candidates are available in the village where the vacancy is to be supplied, which satisfies the mandate of Scheme to which the reference has been made by the Id counsel for petitioner. The petitioner is an ineligible candidate for the post of teacher which is to be filled up in Government Primary School Hatipora. No malafides can be said to be involved in effectuating the Re-T Scheme which provides that the first zone of consideration for making selection/engagement is the revenue village where the school is located and vacancy is to be supplied. 8. Petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this case is having no right in law to challenge the advertisement notice of 2007 and he cannot compel the authorities to proceed ahead with the advertisement notice of 2006 to which the Village Education Committee objected to. No selection can be made without the consent of the V.E.C and in fact the panel is to be prepared by V.E.C headed by the Z.E.O. 9. No selection can be made without the consent of the V.E.C and in fact the panel is to be prepared by V.E.C headed by the Z.E.O. 9. The order dated 24.02.2007 is a detailed and reasoned order and no fault can be found with the said order, consequently, the advertisement notice impugned in this petition is also to be held valid. 10. The submission of the ld. counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is about to cross the upper age limit and thus has last chance to seek a job, cannot be a ground for allowing this writ petition. Justice is to be administered in accordance with the laws. Justice is concept which is fundamental and different to charity and benevolence. There are thousands of un employed youth who may be also crossing upper age limit fixed by government for getting entry into government service. On this plea no relief can be claimed by court of law and no order can be issued by court of law. 11. For the above stated reasons, this petition being merit less and is dismissed.