Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 639 (JK)

Mohd. Aasif Khan v. State

2010-12-22

Sunil Hali

body2010
1. In pursuance to an Advertisement Notice No. Zeo/08/4189-91 dated 27.09.2008, issued by respondent No.4, for engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme (here-in-after called the Scheme), petitioners being eligible under rules applied for the same. A panel was prepared by the Zonal Education Officer concerned. Thereafter, the Chief Education Officer, Anantnag, issued a tentative select list dated 24th of April’ 2009, in which the names of the private respondents 5 and 6 were shown to be as the selected candidates. It is the above selection of private respondents as Rehbar-e-Taleem under the Scheme, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 2. The case set up by the petitioners is that in view of the up-gradation of Primary School, Satrimaidan, two posts of Rehbar-e-Taleem teaching guides became available to be filled up under the Scheme. The basic qualification as per the Scheme was 10+2. The petitioners fulfilled the eligibility criteria, as such, applied for the said posts. It is stated that after the up-gradation of the said school, a representation was filed by the inhabitants of the area which consists of more than 300 people that as the language used in the said village is Pastu, therefore, only those candidates may be considered for selection under the Scheme who know this language. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said representation filed by the villagers was not considered and respondent No.4-Zonal Education Officer, Mattan, prepared a panel without consulting the Village Level Committee, which is mandatory in terms of the provisions of the Scheme. Thereafter, the impugned select list came to be issued by respondent No.3, whereby private respondents 5 and 6 have been shown to be selected as Rehbar-e-Taleem teaching guides. The said private respondents, as per the petitioners, are not the residents of Satrimaidan but of a different village, and as such, were not eligible to be considered against the posts, which became available in Primary School, Satrimaidan. 4. The further contention raised by the petitioners is that the respondents constituted a Village Level Committee for Primary School, Satrimaidan, and conducted a training programme so that the said Committee is acquainted with the objective of the Scheme. However, when the process of selection was initiated by the respondents, the Village Level Committee of village Satrimaidan, where the vacancies existed, was not consulted. However, when the process of selection was initiated by the respondents, the Village Level Committee of village Satrimaidan, where the vacancies existed, was not consulted. As per the petitioners, the Zonal Education Officer, concerned has to prepare the panel of eligible candidates in consultation with the Village Level Committee where the deficiency exists. The panel, however, was prepared in consultation with the Village Education Committee of village Gopalpora, and has been signed by the Headmaster of Government Boys School, Gopalpora. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the objective of the Scheme is to promote decentralized management of the elementary education with the community participation and involvement. It is stated that in the present case, the inhabitants of the area where the vacancy existed, belong to Pathan community and their mother tongue is Pastu. In case, the candidates belonging to the said community who could speak and teach Pastu like the petitioners should have been engaged, the object of the Scheme could have been achieved. The official respondents in this regard should have taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and also the representation filed by the villagers in this behalf and made the selection accordingly. It is contended that the private respondents who belong to a different village could not have been selected against the vacancies which existed in village Satrimaidan. The said action of the respondents is said to be violative of the mandate of the Scheme. By selecting private respondents 5 and 6 from a different village, the official respondents have extended the zone of selection. This could have been done only when the population of the village where the vacancy existed was less than 300. The population of village Satrimaidan, being more than 300, the action of official respondents in selecting respondents 5 and 6 who belong to a different village is not in accordance with the Scheme. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Government Order No.288-Edu of 2009 dated 8th of April’ 2009. 6. Respondents have filed reply. Official respondents have taken a stand that after Advertisement notification was issued for engaging two Rehbar-e-Taleem teaching guides under the Scheme in upgraded Primary School of Satrimaidan, nine applications were received in all. A list of these candidates was prepared in presence of the Village Level Committee. The names of the petitioners figured at SI. Nos. 8 and 9 of the said list. A list of these candidates was prepared in presence of the Village Level Committee. The names of the petitioners figured at SI. Nos. 8 and 9 of the said list. Subsequently, a panel of two meritorious candidates i.e. private respondents 5 and 6 was drawn and submitted to the Chief Education Officer, who issued the tentative select list of the said two candidates vide order dated 20th of April’ 2009. It is contended that after consideration of the inter-se merit of the candidates who had applied, respondents 5 and 6 who were higher in merit and hailing from other mohallas of revenue village Gopalpora were shown to be the selected candidates. 7. The further stand taken by the official respondents is that as the selection process in the present case was completed on 7th of August 2008, as such, the same would be governed by the Scheme and the guidelines issued on the subject vide Government Order No.563-Edu of 2005 dated 24th of Aug’2005, which provided that selection has to be made on the basis of revenue village, and not in terms of the Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009, referred to by the petitioners, which was issued after the selection process had concluded. It is, accordingly, submitted that the official respondents rightly made the selection of private respondents being meritorious candidates. 8. Private respondents 5 and 6 in their objections have pleaded that the revenue village in the present case is Gopalpora to which the said respondents belong. Satrimaidan is a Patti of revenue village Gopalpora. As per the Scheme, no preference is to be given to a candidate belonging to a particular community or speaking a particular language as contended by the petitioners. Before up-gradation of the school concerned, three teachers are already posted in the said school. Two of them know Kashmiri, Urdu and English languages and one is conversant with the Pastu language. It is stated that most of the students in the said school know Urdu language, and as such, no preference was required to be given to the petitioners who belong to a particular community i.e. Pathan and know the Pastu language. It is further contended that the private respondents were found to be meritorious candidates and possessed of professional qualification like B.Ed., had edge over other candidates who lack this qualification. It is further contended that the private respondents were found to be meritorious candidates and possessed of professional qualification like B.Ed., had edge over other candidates who lack this qualification. It is, thus, submitted that the official respondents have rightly selected the private respondents in accordance with the mandate of the Scheme. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Twofold prayer has been made by the petitioners; one relating to the fact that the selection was required to be made in terms of Government Order No.288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009 and another relating to the fact that, the habitation where the school is situated, is more than 300 people and the candidate who is well conversant with Pastu language, has to be given preference. Both the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, cannot be sustained. The respondents have initiated the selection process, which came to be completed on 07.08-2008, while as Govt. Order No.288-Edu of 2009 was issued on 08.04.2009. The selection process had to be completed in terms of the guidelines issued on the subject vide Government Order No.563-Edu of 2005 dated 24.08.2005, which provided that the selection has to be made on the basis of the revenue village and not in terms of the Government Order No.288-Edu of 2009 referred to by the petitioners, which was issued after the selection process had concluded. It is a well settled principle of law that the date of initiation of selection process would determine the criteria to be followed while making selection at that point of time. Any subsequent change in the criteria during the process of selection or after the conclusion of the selection process cannot be adopted. Therefore, the selection was required to be made in pursuance to the Government Order dated 24.08.2005. 11. The second contention raised by the petitioners is that the preference was required to be given to the person who is conversant with Pastu language. The petitioners have not been able to show any provision, relating to appointments to be made on the basis of language been spoken by the people where school is located. In absence of any such stipulation in the scheme, it cannot be said that the preference was required to be given to the person, who is well conversant with Pastu language. In absence of any such stipulation in the scheme, it cannot be said that the preference was required to be given to the person, who is well conversant with Pastu language. It is also revealed from the stand of the respondents that School is already manned by the person, who is conversant with the Pastu language. It is also admitted that people living in the area are fully conversant with the Urdu language. I do not find any stipulation in the scheme, which requires that the preference is to be given to the person, who is conversant with Pastu language. It is not in dispute that the merit of the respondents 5 and 6 is higher than the petitioners. 12. In view of the above, I do not find any force in this writ petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected CMP(s). 13. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith.