Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 643 (JK)

Jagdish Kumar v. State

2011-11-18

Mansoor Ahmad Mir

body2011
1. To seek response from the eligible desirous candidates for selection and appointment of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers under SSA Scheme for various schools in District Jammu including Government Middle School Sandrote, Zone Dansal, an advertisement notice vide No.DIP/J-1233/05 dated 15.07.2005 came to be issued. It is averred that petitioner being eligible having 10+2 qualification applied for the same, Village Level Committee Sandrote also approved and recommended the name of petitioner for appointment as Rehbare-e-Taleem Teacher in the said School and, thereafter, tentative list of candidates was also issued on 26.07.2006 (annexure "E"). Despite his recommendation/selection, appointment letter was not issued in his favour by the competent authority for the reason that his name was reflected in a criminal case. 2. The inaction of the respondents constrained the petitioner to file instant writ petition before this court. 3. Respondents have failed to file reply. 4. The petitioner has also placed on record copy of the judgment passed by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, dated 20.09.2011, whereby the petitioner came to be acquitted. 5. Admittedly, it appears that appointment letter was not issued in favour of petitioner only for the reason that he was involved in the commission of crime, of which he now stands acquitted. 6. Now the moot question for consideration is whether a direction can be issued to the respondents to allow him to join. 7. Admittedly, so far his selection and appointment has not been cancelled, but simply neither appointment letter was issued in his favour nor he was allowed to join his duties. 8. The Apex Court in case titled Babu Lal v. State of Haryana, 1991 AIR 1310, 1991 SCC (2) 335 and High court of Delhi in case titled Sandeep Kumar v. Commissioner of Police have held that pendency of a criminal case is not a ground to deprive a candidate from his selection and appointment. 9. Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the judgments (supra) coupled with the fact that post is still lying vacant and the verity of petitioner having been honourably acquitted, I deem it proper to allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for permitting him to join his duties. 10. 9. Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the judgments (supra) coupled with the fact that post is still lying vacant and the verity of petitioner having been honourably acquitted, I deem it proper to allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for permitting him to join his duties. 10. The respondents, as such, are directed to consider the case of petitioner and make a decision within one month from the date a copy of the judgment is served upon them by the petitioner. 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of along with all CMPs.