Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 297 (JK)

Tariq Mehmood v. State Of J. &K.

2010-05-18

J.P.SINGH

body2010
1. Village-wise applications for engagement of Educational Volunteers for implementation of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan were invited from permanent residents of District Doda who had passed 10 + 2 examination and were not below 18 years or above 35 years of age as on 01.01.2002 vide Chief Education Officer, Dodas Advertisement Notice No. CEO/D/SSA/Advt./18643-75 dated 18.12.2002. 2. The petitioner-Tariq Mehmood applied seeking consideration for selection as Educational Volunteer and the Village Level Committee recommended his engagement. 3. The Government, in the meanwhile, created additional positions of 3rd Teacher for the Primary School on consolidated pay on Rehbar-e-Taleem pattern. 4. Respondent No.6-Riaz Ahmad sought consideration for engagement against the newly created posts of 3rd Teacher pursuant to the Chief Education Officers Advertisement Notice No. CEO/D/11246-347 dated 14.07.2003. 5. Rather than considering respondent No.6 for engagement as 3rd Teacher, the Zonal Education Officer, Ghat, ordered his engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem -Teaching Guide for Primary School Bhatbagi vide his No. ZEO/G/758-61 dated 26.08.2003. 6. Aggrieved by the selection of respondent No.6 as Rehbar-e-Taleem -Teaching Guide, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking quashing of his selection, besides a command to the respondents to appoint him Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher for which he had applied pursuant to Chief Education Officer, Dodas Advertisement Notice of December 18, 2002. 7. Respondent No.6s selection has been questioned by the petitioner on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification of 10 + 2 on the cut off date and was thus disentitled to seek selection as Rehbar-e-Taleem-Teaching Guide for which the petitioner alone, who had applied therefor, was entitled to selection and engagement. 8. Respondent No.6 does not claim his engagement pursuant to Chief Education Officers Advertisement Notice of 18.12.2002, against which the petitioner had applied. He justifies his engagement as one issued pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. CEO/D/11246-347 dated 14.07.2003. 9. In view of the stand taken by respondent No.6, which is supported by the records produced by the learned State Counsel, the petitioner and respondent No.6 appear to have applied for separate positions i.e. the petitioner had applied for engagement as Educational Volunteer whereas respondent No.6 had sought consideration for engagement as Rehbar-e- Taleem-3rd Teacher. 10. The engagement order of respondent No.6, however, indicates that the Zonal Education Officer Ghat had, directed engagement of the respondent as Rehbar-e-Taleem-Teaching Guide in Primary School Bhatbagi, vide his Order No. ZEO/G/758-61 dated 26.08.2003. 10. The engagement order of respondent No.6, however, indicates that the Zonal Education Officer Ghat had, directed engagement of the respondent as Rehbar-e-Taleem-Teaching Guide in Primary School Bhatbagi, vide his Order No. ZEO/G/758-61 dated 26.08.2003. This engagement had been made in reference to the Advertisement issued for engagement of Educational Volunteer in the School for which respondent No.6, as indicated in the records, was not a candidate. 11. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 12. The controversy which arises for determination in the case lies in a narrow compass viz. whether engagement of respondent No.6 as Rehbar-e-Taleem-Teaching Guide pursuant to Advertisement Notice No.CEO/D/SSA/Advt./18643-75 dated 18.12.2002 was justified. 13. From the material placed on the records, it is evident that respondent No.6 had not applied for engagement as Educational Volunteer pursuant to Chief Education Officer, Dodas Advertisement Notice of 18.12.2002 when admittedly he did not possess the requisite qualification of 10 + 2 which he acquired on May 24, 2003 and hence not fulfilling one of the essential eligibility conditions prescribed vide Notification aforementioned. 14. The selection and engagement of respondent No.6 as Rehbar-e-Taleem-Teaching Guide cannot thus be justified as neither had he applied therefor nor was he otherwise eligible to seek consideration for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem- Teaching Guide. 15. The Zonal Education Officers order refusing consideration to the petitioner for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem-Teaching Guide, who had applied therefor and in his place engaging respondent No.6 who had neither applied nor was he otherwise eligible therefor, is, therefore, arbitrary and illegal, hence unsustainable. 16. Respondent No.6s learned counsels plea that respondent No.6s engagement may not warrant interference by the Court when he had already put in more than five years of service and earned right to permanent employment in the State Government, is without merit, in that, continuance of the respondent on the basis of an order per se illegal, cannot be permitted to be perpetuated, additionally because he had procured engagement depriving the petitioner of his constitutional right of consideration for selection and engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem-Teaching Guide. 17. 17. Accordingly, allowing the Petition, the selection and engagement of respondent No.6s as Teaching Guide ordered vide Zonal Education Officer Ghats No. ZEO/G/758-61 dated 26.08.2003 is hereby quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to pass appropriate orders as warranted under rules for engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem-Teaching Guide pursuant to the selection held in response to Chief Education Officer, Dodas Advertisement Notice No. CEO/D/SSA/ Advt./18643-75 dated 18.12.2002 within a period of three months. Records produced by learned State Counsel be returned.