Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 288 (JK)

Shahnaz Begum v. State & Ors.

2011-05-31

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2011
Two vacancies of Rehbar-e-Taleem (for short R.E.T) Teachers under S.S.A 2005-06 were to be supplied in the School situated at Ramluta (Zone- Balakote). The merit list of the candidates was prepared wherein five candidates figure, which include the petitioner and respondent no. 5 & 6. Respondent no.5 is shown to have secured 41.50% in 10+2 and 55.33% in Graduation. Respondent no.6 possessed qualification of 10+2 and is shown to have secured 46.67% whereas the petitioner for qualification of 10+2 is shown to have secured 44.66% and after including Adeeb-e-Kamil is shown to have secured 58%. Respondents have resisted the claim of the petitioner on the grounds taken in their reply. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner in any case is not entitled to be engaged because she is not resident of village Ramluta. Secondly she is inferior in merit after excluding her qualification of Adeeb-e-Kamil, as same is not equivalent to Graduation. So, her merit position has to be assessed on the basis of the percentage obtained by her in Higher Secondary Part-II. The possession of qualification of Adeeb-e-kameel being not equivalent to Graduation has already been settled in detail in bunch of clubbed petitions titled (lead case) Ragbhir Singh Vs. State of J&K & ors., SWP No. 246/2004 and same has been also followed in another judgment rendered in SWP No. 1739/2005. In reported judgment rendered in SWP No. 246/2004, it has been held as under:- “ In the instant case, the State Government through its Education Department has taken a decision that 'Adeeb-E-Kamil' shall not be the graduation level qualification without passing three subjects in B.A Part I, II & III except Persian. Such decision cannot be validly faulted with simply because it has been taken after obtaining the opinion of the University. If the University was not recognizing 'Adeeb-E-Kamil' as graduation level qualification without passing three subjects in B.A Part I, II & III except Persian for the purpose of admissions, it was also open for the Government for not recognizing the said qualification as equivalent to graduation for the purpose of seeking employment on the posts in the State Government as a matter of policy. If the State at some point of time had adopted the policy of accepting the qualification of 'Adeeb-E-Kamil' as equivalent to Graduation, it could under law change that policy and impose conditions for accepting the said qualification as equivalent to graduation. From the letter dated 9.1.2006 it appears that as per the State 'Adeeb-E-Kamil' would be graduation level qualification only if a candidate in addition passes three subjects in B.A Part I, II & III except Persian for the purpose of employment in the Education Department. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for petitioners.” Coming to the second aspect of the case, i.e., position of residence of the petitioner. The petitioner earlier had applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker, said form has been placed on record so as to indicate that the petitioner had applied as against the Anganwadi Centre situated at mohalla Dhakan, village Mangalnar, Rajouri. Same position is supported by the letter addressed by the Tehsildar to Zonal Education Officer, Balakote wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner is resident of Mangalnar, Rajouri. Her family has abandoned residence under depopulation Scheme from village Ramlota during the year 1966-67. Same position on inquiry is found to be correct by the Zonal Education Officer in his communication dated 14th of August' 2006 submitted to Chief Education Officer, Poonch. In the voter list of 2002, parents of the petitioner are shown as residents of village Mangalnar, Rajouri. Then in supplementary list of 2002, petitioner is also shown as voter in the village Mangalnar, Rajouri. Petitioner no doubt possesses Permanent Resident Certificate (P.R.C) for the village Ramluta, but same has been obtained on the basis of the earlier records. In effect, she has been permanently residing in village Mangalnar for the last so many decades, as is clear from the above referred communication and furthermore, her position of being resident of Mangalnar, Rajouri is supported by the voter lists also. Additionally, Village Level Committee as well as the Sarpanch have clearly stated that the petitioner is residing in village Mangalnar, Rajouri since 1965. Viewed thus, both on question of merit as well as on question of residence, the petitioner has no case, so, inclusion of her name in the merit list was unwarranted as she was not eligible being not the resident of village Ramluta. Viewed thus, both on question of merit as well as on question of residence, the petitioner has no case, so, inclusion of her name in the merit list was unwarranted as she was not eligible being not the resident of village Ramluta. Additionally, even after inclusion, she does not possess the merit superior to that of the respondents no. 5 & 6. Accordingly, petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.