Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 102 (JK)

Lalita Devi v. State of J&K & others

2012-03-12

J.P.SINGH

body2012
Apprehending her ouster as Rehbar-e-Taleem in newly Upgraded Primary School, Sabha Basti, Badyal Brahmana Zone Miran Sahib Tehsil R.S.Pura on Seema Raina s Complaint claiming appointment on the basis of her better merit, the petitioner-Lalita Devi approached this Court by her Writ Petition, SWP No.871/2005. This Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 30.09.2005 providing that if any adverse order was warranted against the petitioner, rules in vogue and principles of natural justice be observed. Pursuant to the orders passed in the petitioner s Writ Petition, the Director School Education, Jammu found Seema Raina entitled to engagement being better in merit to the petitioner. He, therefore, issued Notice to the petitioner as to why her services be not terminated. The petitioner again approached this Court questioning the Directorate s Notice besides seeking directions for continuance as Rehbar-e- Taleem. Her Writ Petition, SWP No.1573/2005 was, however, held premature and accordingly dismissed on 15.05.2006. Considering the petitioner s Reply to the Show Cause Notice, it was found that she was disentitled to engagement being lower in merit to Seema Raina. Director School Education, Jammu, therefore, approved Seema Raina for appointment as Teacher under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme in Govt. Primary School Sabha Basti in place of the petitioner vide order dated 20.03.2007. The petitioner questioned the Directorate s order by her third Writ Petition SWP No.571/2007. During pendency of the above mentioned Writ Petition, the petitioner filed yet another Writ Petition, SWP No.620/2007, wherein she questioned Zonal Education Officer, Miran Sahib, Jammu s order No.ZEO/MS/07/1845-49 dated 30.03.2007 whereby Seema Raina was engaged as Rehbar-e-Taleem. The only plea that the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner canvassed at the time of hearing of these Petitions was that as Seema Raina was not possessing Permanent Resident Certificate when she applied for engagement as Rehbar-e- Taleem, so she was not entitled to engagement being ineligible therefor, in that, possessing of Permanent Resident Certificate was a necessary eligibility condition to compete in selection for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem. Learned counsel, however, did not dispute that Permanent Resident Certificate stands issued to Seema Raina during the pendency of the litigation and there was no dispute about her status as Permanent Resident of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Learned counsel, however, did not dispute that Permanent Resident Certificate stands issued to Seema Raina during the pendency of the litigation and there was no dispute about her status as Permanent Resident of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Learned State counsel and the learned counsel appearing for Seema Raina submitted that status of Seema Raina as Permanent Resident of the State being not in dispute, non issuance of Permanent Resident Certificate in favour of Seema Raina at the time she applied seeking consideration for selection would not operate as impediment particularly when she had applied for issuance of such Certificate before seeking consideration for engagement as Rehbar-e- Taleem. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on records. The petitioner s Claim to engagement as Rehbare- Taleem in Govt. Primary School Sabha Basti, as projected in these two Petitions, is not based on her superior merit, in that, Seema Raina s better merit to that of the petitioner is not disputed. The petitioner s Claim to engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem is based only on the ground that Seema Raina was not possessing Permanent Resident Certificate at the time when she applied for selection and this disability would disentitle her for selection and engagement being ineligible therefor and the petitioner alone thus becomes entitled to engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem. I don t find any merit in petitioner s submission. This is so because the status of the respondent as Permanent Resident of the State of Jammu and Kashmir being not in dispute, she cannot be denied engagement though found better in merit merely because there was delay in issuance of formal Certificate by the Competent Authority certifying her to be the permanent resident of the Jammu and Kashmir State. The respondent acquired her status as permanent resident of the State by her birth to the parents who were permanent residents of the State and this status of her s was not in any way dependent on the issuance of Permanent Resident Certificate by the Competent Authority. A Permanent Resident Certificate only testifies the already acquired status of the person who possesses it and in this view of the matter, the respondent s Claim to appointment cannot be faulted merely on the ground that she was possessing only Under-Process Certificate at the time she applied seeking consideration for engagement. A Permanent Resident Certificate only testifies the already acquired status of the person who possesses it and in this view of the matter, the respondent s Claim to appointment cannot be faulted merely on the ground that she was possessing only Under-Process Certificate at the time she applied seeking consideration for engagement. Being lower in merit to Seema Raina, the petitioner s challenge to the engagement of respondent as Rehar-e-Taleem in her place, therefore, fails. Thus, found without merit, these Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed lifting the interim orders issued during currency thereof.