Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 372 (JK)

Safya Haider Lone v. State Of J&K

2010-07-01

J.P.Singh

body2010
1. Selection and engagement of Ruheena Banoo, Shahnaza Banoo and Zareefa Banoo-respondent Nos. 6 to 8, in these two Writ Petitions, on Rehbar-e-Taleem pattern in Kastoorba Gandhi Balika Vidhalaya (KGBV), on contractual basis, has been questioned by the petitioners on the grounds that breaching the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the respondents had acted arbitrarily in raising the maximum age limit for the candidates belonging to the reserved category of Resident of Backward Area to 40 years as against 37 years, fixed earlier, and that the selection of the respondents, being against the provisions of the Scheme was unsustainable, in that, belonging to the Village other than the one where Kastoorba Gandhi Balika Vidhalaya was located, they were not entitled to Selection. 2. The State-respondents have justified the selection and engagement of the respondents in their Response to the Writ Petition saying that the Kastoorba Gandhi Balika Vidhalaya (KGBV) Scheme contemplated selection of female candidates from respective Education Zones and not from the Revenue Village where the School was located. According to them, the selection of the respondents had been made strictly in accordance with the Scheme. 3. Issuance of Corrigendum No.CEO/K/09/1136-40 dated 22.05.2009 to Advertisement Notice No. CEO/ SSA/89/ 755-58 dated 16.02.2009 is justified by stating that the maximum age of the candidates belonging to the reserved category of Resident of Backward Area had been enhanced in view of the issuance of Government Order No.559-GAD of 2008 dated 23.04.2008, whereby the Government in the General Administration Department had enhanced the maximum age limit in case of candidates belonging to Socially and Educationally Backward Classes viz. Weak and Under Privileged Classes (Social Castes), Resident of Areas Adjoining Line of Actual Control (ALC) & Resident of Backward Areas (RBA). 4. It is stated that after the issuance of the Corrigendum, six more applications were received thereby taking total number of the Applications for zone Marwah to 52. 5. According to the respondents, the petitioners would figure lower in merit to the respondents and were thus not entitled to selection and engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem under KGBV Scheme. 6. Respondent Nos. 4. It is stated that after the issuance of the Corrigendum, six more applications were received thereby taking total number of the Applications for zone Marwah to 52. 5. According to the respondents, the petitioners would figure lower in merit to the respondents and were thus not entitled to selection and engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem under KGBV Scheme. 6. Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 have justified their selection and engagement on the basis of their higher merit determined as such by the Selection Committee saying additionally that the corrigendum issued to the earlier Notification, enhancing the maximum age limit for candidates belonging to Socially and Educationally Backward Classes viz. Weak and Under Privileged Classes (Social Castes), Resident of Areas Adjoining Line of Actual Control (ALC) & Resident of Backward Areas (RBA) to 40 years was neither arbitrary nor irrational. It is rather asserted to be in line with the Government order whereby maximum age for candidates belonging to Socially and Educationally Backward Classes viz. Weak and Under Privileged Classes (Social Castes), Resident of Areas Adjoining Line of Actual Control (ALC) & Resident of Backward Areas (RBA) for entry into Government service stood enhanced to 40 years. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on records. 8. Perusal of the Chief Education Officer, Kishtwar's Notification No.CEO/SSA/89/755-58 dated 16.02.2009 indicates that 40 years maximum age had been indicated only for those candidates who belonged to the reserved category of SC/ST making no mention of the maximum age prescribed for those belonging to the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes. 9. Omission to indicate 40 years age for candidates belonging to Socially and Educationally Backward Classes in the earlier Notification thus appears to be inadvertent as Government Order No.559-GAD of 2008 dated 23.04.2008, issued earlier to the Advertisement Notice appears to have escaped the notice of the Chief Education Officer who later corrected the mistake by issuing the Corrigendum. 10. The Corrigendum issued by the Chief Education Officer, Kishtwar, a step to correct the inadvertent error, cannot thus be faulted. With the issuance of the Corrigendum and as a necessary corollary thereto, a fresh opportunity had to be afforded to those candidates belonging to the Reserved Category who could not apply earlier because of the omission of the Authorities to indicate the maximum age for candidates belonging to Socially and Educationally Backward Classes. 11. With the issuance of the Corrigendum and as a necessary corollary thereto, a fresh opportunity had to be afforded to those candidates belonging to the Reserved Category who could not apply earlier because of the omission of the Authorities to indicate the maximum age for candidates belonging to Socially and Educationally Backward Classes. 11. The action of the official respondents in considering respondent Nos. 6 to 8 who had applied pursuant to the Corrigendum and within the time prescribed thereby, cannot therefore be questioned. 12. Petitioners' learned counsel's plea that the Corrigendum was arbitrary and unconstitutional, too is found untenable, in that, the candidates belonging to the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes could not be treated differently than those belonging to other reserved categories of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe for whom the maximum indicated age was 40 years. 13. Petitioners' next plea that being residents of the Revenue Village where the School was located, they alone were entitled to seek consideration for selection, too is found misconceived, in that, the Kastoorba Gandhi Balika Vidhalaya (KGBV) Scheme does not contemplate Selection of candidates for Vidhalaya from amongst those residing in the Village where the Vidhalaya was located. In terms of the Scheme, the Selection has to be made from amongst the candidates belonging to respective Education Zones formulated under the Scheme. 14. For all what has been said above, the challenge made by the petitioners to the selection and engagement of respondent Nos. 6 to 8 as Rehbar-e-Taleem under the Kastoorba Gandhi Balika Vidhalaya (KGBV), in these two Writ Petitions, therefore, fails. 15. Thus, found without merit, these Writ Petitions are dismissed.