Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 597 (JK)

Shabnam Akhtar v. State Of J&K

2010-12-04

J.P.Singh

body2010
1. Panel prepared for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem against non-medical stream for upgraded Primary School, Gower under SSA Scheme, pursuant to the Advertisement Notice No.CEO/J/K/SSA/2009/375-77 dated 11.12.2009, by the Zonal Education Officer, Marwah, in which Ravi Kant-respondent No.5 figured as the selected candidate, has been questioned by the petitioner-Shabnam Akhtar, inter alia, on the ground that the Panel was prepared without giving wide publicity to the Advertisement Notice, as a result whereof, she like many others situated similarly, who resided in the remote areas, which were cut off due to heavy snowfall and would not know about the Advertisement Notice for lack of communication facilities, was deprived of the right to seek consideration for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem. 2. To support her contention that the Advertisement Notice was not given wide publicity and the villagers did not come to know about it, reliance is placed on the Resolution of the members of the Village Level Education Committee and the Communication, whereby Director, School Education, Jammu had sought explanation from the Chief Education Officer, Kishtwar on her Representation. 3. Responding to the petitioner's plea in the Writ Petition, the State-respondents deny the petitioner's plea that wide publicity had not been given to the Notification asserting that Applications were invited for engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem under SSA Scheme for 71 upgraded Schools, which included the Upgraded Primary School, Gower, giving it wide publicity by publishing the Advertisement Notice in the Newspapers, placing copies thereof on the Notice Board of the Chief Education Officer, Kishtwar and Zonal Education Officer, Marwah, besides on the Notice Board of the Upgraded Primary School, Gower. Copy of the Advertisement Notice is stated to have been sent to the concerned Village Level Education Committee too. It is further indicated that the Advertisement Notice was issued on 11.12.2009 and the last date for submission of Forms was 29.12.2009. The Tentative Panel prepared by the Zonal Education Officer, Marwah was displayed in the village for seven days w.e.f. 27.01.2010 to 02.02.2010. The petitioner had neither applied pursuant to the Advertisement Notice nor did she submit any objections to the Panel prepared by the Zonal Education Officer, Marwah during the period it remained displayed in the village. 4. The Tentative Panel prepared by the Zonal Education Officer, Marwah was displayed in the village for seven days w.e.f. 27.01.2010 to 02.02.2010. The petitioner had neither applied pursuant to the Advertisement Notice nor did she submit any objections to the Panel prepared by the Zonal Education Officer, Marwah during the period it remained displayed in the village. 4. Contesting the petitioner's plea, respondent No.5 says that the Advertisement Notice was given wide publicity and about 60 candidates from Zone Marwah had applied for different posts in Zone Marwah out of which four candidates belonged to the revenue village Chicha-Gower. One candidate therefrom was selected as Rehbar-e-Taleem against one of the two posts in Upgraded Primary School, Gower. According to the respondent, petitioner was infact residing in Jammu after her marriage with Mohd. Abbas and was, thus, not entitled to seek consideration for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem and her plea that the Advertisement Notice was not given wide publicity was against facts. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on the records by them to support their respective contentions. 6. The petitioner's plea that wide publicity was not given to the Advertisement Notice thereby depriving her and many others to compete for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem is found to be an after thought, in that, had the Advertisement Notice been not given wide publicity, how would those persons who had competed to seeking consideration for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem know about the Advertisement Notice. The fact that 60 candidates from the area where the posts existed, had competed, pursuant to the Advertisement Notice, indicates that the people of the area were well aware about the issuance of the Advertisement Notice. 7. Another factor which disproves the petitioner's plea, is the impugned panel itself, which is signed not only by the Zonal Education Officer, Marwah but also by the members of the Village Level Education Committee, wherein it is that the Panel remained displayed in the village for seven days with effect from 27.01.2010 to 02.02.2010. Not only that, the Resolution relied upon by the petitioner to project her plea that the Advertisement Notice had not received wide publicity, too does not support her contention and on the other hand reveals that the petitioner had been living at Jammu with her husband and could not thus apply to seek consideration for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem. 8. Not only that, the Resolution relied upon by the petitioner to project her plea that the Advertisement Notice had not received wide publicity, too does not support her contention and on the other hand reveals that the petitioner had been living at Jammu with her husband and could not thus apply to seek consideration for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem. 8. In this view of the matter, when the Resolution of the Village Level Education Committee and the residents of the area do not support the petitioner's case and on the other hand support the contention of the respondents that the petitioner was residing at Jammu and could not apply to seek consideration within time, the petitioner's plea that wide publicity was not given to the Advertisement Notice by the official respondents is found without merit. 9. Thus having opted not to apply to seek consideration against the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem in non-medical stream for Upgraded Primary School, Gower, the petitioner is not entitled to question the Panel in which respondent No.5 figures as the selected candidate. 10. The sole plea projected by the petitioner having thus failed, there is no merit in the Writ Petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.