Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 30 (JK)

Nazir Ahmad Ganai v. State Of J. &K.

2010-02-01

MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR

body2010
1. Notification issued by Chief Education Officer, Pulwama, was published in newspaper on 24th of December, 2005. Objections were invited in respect of candidates mentioned in the said notification who were proposed to be enlisted for the selection/engagement of Educational Volunteers (for short EVs). Petitioners as well as private respondents figured in the said notification. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that though private respondents have been selected and engaged yet the petitioners have been discriminated by not selecting and engaging them as Education Volunteers (EVs). 3. The Court vide order dated 16th July, 2009 directed the Chief Education Officer, Pulwama, to produce the record and to indicate the number of persons who have been selected after the abolition of the scheme and the reasons for not appointing the petitioners as EVs. The Chief Education Officer, Pulwama was further directed to file personal affidavit detailing the facts as directed in the said order. 4. Affidavit has been filed by the Chief Education Officer, Pulwama on 15th September, 2009. It is stated in the affidavit that Mehmooda Akher and Tajala Husain Mir were appointed as EVs after the date of abolition of the Scheme. It is also stated in the affidavit that though the panel for engagement was prepared on 25th July, 2005, yet selection could not be made as ban was imposed. It is further stated that the panel prepared by different Zonal Education Officers were returned back as selection and engagement could not be made after the ban imposed on such engagement/ appointments. It is further stated that the panel of petitioners was also returned to the concerned Zonal Education Officer. It is further stated that preparation of panel did not confer any right on any candidate including petitioners for being selected. 5. The Court after considering the case of the parties and considering the affidavit filed by the Chief Education Officer, Pulwama on 16.11.2009 directed the respondents to take a stand as to how two persons were engaged after the ban was imposed. 6. Today Mr. J.A. Kawoosa, learned AAG appearing for respondents produced the copy of order No. CEO/Pul/SA/09-267-73 dated 30-12-2009 whereby Mehmooda Akhter and Tajala Hussain Mir have been disengaged. Copy of the order is taken on record. 7. Heard learned counsel for parties. Considered the matter. 8. 6. Today Mr. J.A. Kawoosa, learned AAG appearing for respondents produced the copy of order No. CEO/Pul/SA/09-267-73 dated 30-12-2009 whereby Mehmooda Akhter and Tajala Hussain Mir have been disengaged. Copy of the order is taken on record. 7. Heard learned counsel for parties. Considered the matter. 8. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that besides these two persons scores of other persons have been engaged after ban was imposed in March, 2006 for making selection/engagement EVs. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that petitioners cannot be discriminated by denying engagement to them. 9. Mr. J. A. Kawoosa, submitted that petitioners were not selected for being engaged as EVs. It was only a panel which was prepared. Learned counsel further submitted that before the case of the petitioners could be considered for being selected and engaged as EVs, a ban was imposed by the Government for engagement of EVs in March, 2006. Learned counsel further submitted that in such circumstances no indefensible right was created in the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that petition being meritless be dismissed. 10. The scheme under which EVs were to be engaged having been abolished by the Government and total ban imposed on opening up of EGS Centres in March, 2006, it can be safely concluded that no post of EVs was available with the Government. The process initiated for making selection/engagement as EVs in EGS Centres having not culminated into making selection/engagement would not confer any right in law on the petitioners to seek direction to respondents to engage them. The posts being not available, respondents cannot be directed in law to engage the petitioners, more so when they were not selected. It was only a panel for proposed selection which was notified. Petitioner being not clothed with any right in law cannot seek issuance of any direction to the respondents. 11. The contention of the learned counsel of petitioners is that private respondents who were figuring in the said panel along with petitioners having been engaged, would confer a right on the petitioners as well to seek direction to the respondents to engage them. 12. The Chief Education Officer, Pulwama in his affidavit in unequivocal terms stated that only two persons whose names have been given in the affidavit were engaged after the ban was imposed. 13. 12. The Chief Education Officer, Pulwama in his affidavit in unequivocal terms stated that only two persons whose names have been given in the affidavit were engaged after the ban was imposed. 13. The said stand taken by the Chief education Officer, Pulwama would thus show the private respondents were not engaged after the ban was imposed. 14. Learned counsel for petitioners, at last, made a submission that he be given opportunity to file supplementary affidavit so as to show to the Court that number of persons have been engaged as EVs after the ban imposed by the Government on such engagement. The petitioners have not taken any steps to respond to the affidavit filed by the Chief Education Officer, Pulwama and it will not be appropriate now to grant such a liberty to the petitioners. Petitioners have to be vigilant about their rights. While invoking writ jurisdiction they have to place all the facts before the Court. Allowing the prayer of the petitioners at this stage would tantamount to protracting litigation against the persons who are not party in the writ petition, and no writ can be issued against the person who is not a party in the writ petition. The submission of the learned counsel for petitioners on this score also merits rejection. 15. For the above stated reasons this petition, being meritless, is accordingly dismissed along with all connected CMP(s).