Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 573 (JK)

Javida Akhter v. State

2011-10-24

Hasnain Massodi

body2011
1. Heard. Admit. 2. The petition, in view of the short controversy involved, is at the request taken up for final disposal at its threshold. 3. The dispute between the parties relates to domicile/ place of the residence of the petitioner. The Zonal Education Officer, Kunzar--respondent No. 6 herein vide advertisement notice No. ZK/4634-36 dated 11.12.2009 invited applications from the eligible candidates belonging to revenue village Kralwath, for two posts of R.e.T lying vacant in the local school. The petitioner responded to the advertisement notice and so did the respondent No. 7. The petitioner accordingly was included in the list of candidates who applied for the available vacancies. However, the respondent No. 6 scored out her name from the list on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted her Present Residence Certificate and that as per the verification made by the respondent No. 6, the petitioner was presently residing at Model town Sopore, and not eligible for the advertised post. 4. The petitioner aggrieved with her non-inclusion in panel of the eligible candidates prepared by respondent No. 6, filed writ petition registered as SWP No. 2082/2009. The petitioner's grievance was that she was not in a position to get Present Residence Certificate because of the Circular issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate Sopore forbidding all the Tehsildars including Tehsildar Tangmarg for issuance of such Certificate. It is pertinent to point out that the Permanent Residence Certificate/State Subject Certificate was duly enclosed by the petitioner with her application and as per said Certificate petitioner was a resident of village Kralwath. The writ petition was disposed of, on Ist. February 2010 with a direction to the respondents to accord consideration to the petitioner's case and finalise selection thereafter. 5. However, the respondents proceeded with the selection process and prepared a panel of two candidates-respondent No. 7 and one Ashiq Hussain Lone. The petitioner once again approached this Court with SWP No. 101 of 2010, the writ petition was disposed of, with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner Baramulla to inquire into the matter and conclude inquiry within one month. However, the respondents proceeded with the selection process and prepared a panel of two candidates-respondent No. 7 and one Ashiq Hussain Lone. The petitioner once again approached this Court with SWP No. 101 of 2010, the writ petition was disposed of, with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner Baramulla to inquire into the matter and conclude inquiry within one month. The Deputy Commissioner Baramulla first appointed Shri Mohamad Akbar Project Officer, DRDA, Baramulla as Inquiry Officer and later entrusted the inquiry to Shri Showket Ahmad Dar Additional District Development Commissioner Baramulla, The Deputy Commissioner instead of arriving at his own conclusion vide No. DCB/2011/457 dated 26.01.2011 forwarded both the inquiry reports i.e. one rendered by Shri Mohamad Akbar Project Officer, DRDA, and other by Shri Showket Ahmad Dar Additional District Development Commissioner Baramulla to the Chief Education Officer for his perusal and further necessary action. It is pertinent to point out that the first Inquiry Officer-Project Officer DRDA Baramulla concluded that the petitioner and her husband Shri Irfan Ahmad had not permanently shifted from the village Kralwath and were not to be deprived of their rights as residents of village Kralwath. The Second Inquiry Officer-Additional District Development Commissioner opined that the petitioner was not actually residing in village Kralweth at the time she applied for the post in question but had temporarily shifted from village Kralwath to Sopore. The Second Inquiry Officer left her validity of candidature to the decision of the officers of Education Department. 6. The petitioner apprehending that the respondents may go ahead with the appointment of private respondents on the basis of the Second inquiry report has filed the instant writ petition praying for following reliefs:- (a) A writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner against the post of ReT in the light of inquiry report submitted by Project Officer District Rural Agency Baramulla vide No. DRDA /Bla/1074 dated 11.10.2010 forming annexure-P/10 to the writ petition. (b) A writ of certiorari seeking quashment of 2nd inquiry report submitted by Additional District Development Commissioner Baramulla, vide his No. ADDC/Bla/623 dated 10.01.2011. (c) A writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to come under the political influence by giving undue advantage to the private respondent who is lower in merit than that of the petitioner. (b) A writ of certiorari seeking quashment of 2nd inquiry report submitted by Additional District Development Commissioner Baramulla, vide his No. ADDC/Bla/623 dated 10.01.2011. (c) A writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to come under the political influence by giving undue advantage to the private respondent who is lower in merit than that of the petitioner. (d) A writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner from the date she was due for appointment with all consequential benefits. 7. The respondents oppose the writ petition on the grounds that the inquiry conducted by Additional District Development Commissioner and other inputs from the local Revenue Agency having established beyond doubt that the petitioner was not residing at village Kralwath at the time she applied for the advertised post, the official respondents were within their power to finalise the selection having regard to the inquiry report and other material available to the respondents. 8. I have gone through pleadings and have heard Counsel for the parties. 9. It is pertinent to point out that in terms of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme, engagement of a ReT having regard to the role, expected to be played by him to achieve the objects of the Abhiyan is to be drawn from the local habitation or revenue village, as the case may be. The question arises whether a candidate who because of personal reasons has temporarily shifted his residents from the habitation or revenue village, as the case may be, to an urban area is automatically disentitled from competing for the available position of Rehbar-e-Taleem in the local school. It is fact of common knowledge that people from rural areas migrate to urban areas for different reasons including better educational avenues for their children, in pursuit and in connection with employment, or to set up a business. Such migration may be temporary or permanent. The person migrating may have an intention to go back and resume residence in his village once he achieves short term target(s). In some of case such migration may be permanent and the person migrating having no intention to return to his village to resume his residence in the village. In any case the determining factor is intention of the persons migrating from the villages. 10. In some of case such migration may be permanent and the person migrating having no intention to return to his village to resume his residence in the village. In any case the determining factor is intention of the persons migrating from the villages. 10. In the present case though the inquiry reports are in some respects conflicting, still there is an agreement between the Inquiry Officers that the petitioner has only temporarily shifted from village Kralweth and set up a temporary residence at Model town Sopore. The inquiry reports do not help us to know whether the petitioner has set up a Permanent Residence at Model town Sopore and has no intention to resume residence at village Kralweth, or the petitioner's intention is to return to her village and start residing at her native place. Since this question is likely to come up in a number of cases, it would be appropriate to lay down guidelines for determination of the question before the parties are pushed to unnecessary and avoidable litigation. 11. The intention of a person migrating from a village or habitation of a village to a town or a city to reside in such town or city for a brief/short period or to permanently settle in such town or city is gatherable from a number of attending circumstances. The facts to be considered to gather intention of such migrant are his decision to retain the residential house and landed property at his native place, construction of a residential house in the town or city where he has migrated. Whether such a migrant applies for Ration Card in town or city, surrenders his Ration Card pertaining to his native place, opts for his enrollment in the Voter list in the town or the city where he has migrated, gets his name deleted from the voter list pertaining to his native place some are of the factors that deserve to be considered while concluding whether he had an intention to permanently migrate to the town or city. The list of afore identified factors however is only illustrative not exhaustive. 12. It is the Tehsildar (Territorial) who is competent to inquire into the matter and arrive at a conclusion of-course after affording such a migrant an opportunity of being heard and having regard to the inputs he gets from his field agency including local Patwari. The list of afore identified factors however is only illustrative not exhaustive. 12. It is the Tehsildar (Territorial) who is competent to inquire into the matter and arrive at a conclusion of-course after affording such a migrant an opportunity of being heard and having regard to the inputs he gets from his field agency including local Patwari. The Zonal Education Officer has neither expertise nor the necessary information available to decide whether a person who has migrated from his village or habitation to a town or a city intends to temporarily set up a residence in a town or city or has permanently so migrated. 13. From the above discussion it emerges that the Chief Education Officer/Zonal Education Officer whenever necessary is to ask the candidate whose eligibility is disputed on the basis of his having migrated from his native place to a city or town or another village to get Present Residence Certificate from the Tehsildar (Territorial) within whose jurisdiction the revenue village falls. It is pertinent to point out that whenever the migration is only temporary and it is discernible from the available material that such person intends to resume resident in village or habitation he deserves to be considered for the available vacancy of Rehbar-e-Taleem in the local school. 14. In the present case the Circular, issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate Sopore, directing all the Tehsildar not to issue such Certificates is unwarranted and not to stand in way of Tehsildars concerned to consider the matter issue or decline to issue Present Residence Certificate. The guidelines that are required to be followed to achieve the object of SSA Scheme may thus be summarised as under: (I) The Chief Education Officer/Zonal Education Officer shall where-ever it is necessary to verify present residence of an aspirant for ReT, ask for Present Residence Certificate from such aspirant to be submitted before the tentative panel of the candidates is prescribed. (II) The Present Residence Certificate shall be issued by Tehsildar (Territorial) and to rule out any confusion or uncertainty no other certificate from any other authority shall be entertained. (III) The Tehsildar before issuance of the certificate shall inquire into the matter and take into account all the above mentioned factors, the report of his Field Agency and other factor that are found relevant to inquiry. 15. (III) The Tehsildar before issuance of the certificate shall inquire into the matter and take into account all the above mentioned factors, the report of his Field Agency and other factor that are found relevant to inquiry. 15. For the reasons discussed the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the Tehsildar (Territorial) Tangmarg-respondent No. 5 herein to accord consideration to the petitioner's case for grant of Present Residence Certificate having regard to the observations made herein above and all inputs, reports that may be available by his field staff. The Tehsildar (Territorial) shall give adequate opportunity to the petitioner as also any other person who objects to grant of such certificate in favour of the petitioner to project their stand, and shall in any case pass order warranted under facts and circumstances of the case within four weeks from the date copy of this order is served on him. The Chief Education Officer and Zonal Education Officer shall on receipt of order of Tehsildar (Territorial) finalise the selection in light of such order and issue engagement order in favour of the candidate entitled to be engaged. Till then the selection process shall be put on hold. The writ petition is disposed of, along with connected CMP(s).