Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 701 (JK)

Sundeep Kumar v. State Of J. &K.

2009-12-31

J.P.SINGH

body2009
1. Petitioner, Sundeep Kumar, has filed this Petition seeking quashing of the recommendations made by the Village Level Education Committee of Primary School, Charya, selecting Shib Devi, respondent no.6, as Rehbar-e-Taleem for Primary School, Charya, besides issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to the respondents to reconvene the Village Level Education Committee to consider the petitioner for selection as Rehbar-e-Taleem, in accordance with the judgment delivered by this Court in LPA(SW) no.59/2007. 2. The facts giving rise to this Petition may be stated thus:- Shib Devi, respondent no.6, filed Writ Petition SWP no.234/2004 in this Court questioning the petitioners selection as third teacher in Primary School, Charya on the ground that being a resident of village Kandote he was not entitled to selection as Rehbar-e-Taleem for Primary School, Charya. 3. Her Writ Petition was allowed quashing the petitioners selection and engagement as third teacher in Government Boys Primary School, Charya and issuing a direction to the official respondents to appoint Shib Devi as third teacher in the Government Boys Primary School, Charya. 4. The petitioner appealed against the judgment of the Writ Court by his LPA(SW) no.59/2007, which was allowed holding as follows:- "There cannot be any dispute that a village mentioned in the order of the Government should be deemed to be such a village which is identifiable as such from the Government records and that can only be the records of the revenue department of the Government and, accordingly, we have no hesitation in accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the State as well as the appellant that the concept of village propounded in the said order is a revenue village. However, according to the said order, such revenue village can have only one village level committee which shall be entitled to deal with all educational institutions within the village. We are told that there is one more school situate in the village and known as Government Girls Primary School, Kandote which is also within the jurisdiction of that village level committee which is in seizen over the other School namely, Government Boys Primary School, Charaya. We are told that there is one more school situate in the village and known as Government Girls Primary School, Kandote which is also within the jurisdiction of that village level committee which is in seizen over the other School namely, Government Boys Primary School, Charaya. Since the procedure prescribed is required to be followed for doing what has been prescribed, and since we are of the view that the procedure prescribed has not been followed in the instant case, we would not interfere with that part of the judgment and order under appeal by which the appointment of the appellant has been cancelled but, at the same time, we shall interfere with that part of the judgment and order under appeal by which the petitioner has been permitted to occupy the vacancy which was hitherto before supplied by the appellant and, accordingly, that part of the judgment and order is set aside. We remit back the matter to the Zonal Education Officer with a direction upon him to constitute village level committee in terms of the directions contained in the said Government order, if not already constituted; hold a meeting or meetings, as the case may be, of the village level committee in relation to the vacancies to be supplied in the schools situate within the jurisdiction of the village level committee; select candidates and give appointments to them within a period of one month from today. Inasmuch as the appellant is working in one of the schools and inasmuch as there is one more vacancy in another school, we direct the appellant to work in the school he is working for a period of two months from today only. Permission accorded to the appellant to work for two months in the school where he is working by this order will not earn any advantage in his favour in any manner whatsoever. It is made clear that the selection pursuant to this order shall remain confined only amongst those candidates who were within the zone of consideration at the time of the earlier selection resulting in filing of the present writ petition, and, accordingly, question of any of such candidates being overaged shall not apply." 5. It is made clear that the selection pursuant to this order shall remain confined only amongst those candidates who were within the zone of consideration at the time of the earlier selection resulting in filing of the present writ petition, and, accordingly, question of any of such candidates being overaged shall not apply." 5. Being of the view that the Division Bench of this Court had upheld the learned Single Judges view of non-suiting Sundeep Kumar for selection as Rehbar-e-Taleem, the Village Level Committee, Kandote for Primary School, Charya, recommended Shib Devi as the only eligible candidate fit for selection as Rehbar-e-Taleem in Primary School, Charya. 6. A plain reading of the Honble Division Benchs judgment, clearly demonstrates that the selection for the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem for Primary School, Charya was to be considered by the Village Level Education Committee from amongst those candidates who were within the zone of consideration when the selection was first held. In other words, the petitioner, who was a candidate in the earlier selection, too, was to be considered within the zone of consideration and he was required to be considered for selection. 7. The Village Level Committee has thus fallen in error in misconstruing the judgment of the Honble Division Bench to mean that the Court had non suited the petitioner in seeking consideration for selection as Rehbar-e-Taleem for Primary School, Charya, when nothing of this sort had been said by the Division Bench and the only ground on which the petitioners earlier selection had been set aside, was that the Village Level Committee had not followed the proper procedure in making the selection of the petitioner. 8. The penultimate paragraph of the judgment makes it explicit that the matter had been remitted to the Zonal Education Officer to constitute the Village Level Education Committee for holding its meetings in relation to the vacancies to be supplied in the Schools situated within the jurisdiction of the Village Level Committee; select candidates and give appointments to them. The selection in question for Primary School, Charya had, however, been restricted to the applicants who were within the zone of consideration at the time of the earlier selection. 9. The petitioner, being one of the eligible candidates at the time of earlier selection was thus one of the contestants who could not be ignored consideration by the Village Level Committee. 10. 9. The petitioner, being one of the eligible candidates at the time of earlier selection was thus one of the contestants who could not be ignored consideration by the Village Level Committee. 10. The decision taken by the Village Level Committee is, thus, erroneous and a result of mis-interpretation of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench. 11. The decision taken by the Village Level Committee, selecting Shib Devi as Rehbar-E-Taleem for Primary School, Charya, therefore, needs to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, allowing this Petition, Village Level Education Committee for Primary School, Charyas decision recommending Shib Devis selection for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleeem for Primary School, Charya is quashed and the matter remitted to the Zonal Education Officer, Thathri to carry out the selection as directed by the Division Bench vide its judgment dated 12.02.2009, considering the petitioner too, for selection against the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem for Primary School, Charya.