Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 115 (JK)

Syed Yaser Arafat v. State & Ors.

2012-03-19

HASNAIN MASSODI

body2012
1. Chief Education Officer, Poonch—respondent no. 3 herein, vide Advertisement Notice No. CHOP/SSA/545-566 dated 18th April, 2009, invited applications from eligible candidates for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem in newly opened and Upgraded Primary Schools of the District including Primary School Manuwali, Village Serf Surankote, upgraded under SSA Plan 2007-2008, as Upper Primary School. 2. The petitioner having passed 10+2 examination with Science subjects and also having B.A and B.Ed Degrees to his credit, also applied for the advertised vacancy. The respondent no. 3, vide Corrigendum No. CEOP/SSA/579-600 dated 24th April, 2009, notified that for Upper Primary School, (Upgraded during 2008-2009 plan), the candidates must have Science/Math subjects. The respondent no. 3, by yet another Corrigendum No. CEOP/983-1004 dated 7th August, 2009, directed Para3 (a) of the Advertisement Notice dated 18th April 2009, to read as "for UPS (Upgraded during 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 plan), the candidate must have Science/Math subjects". The petitioner as stated responded to the Advertisement Notice and so did Shri Manzoor S/o Abdul Gani Malik R/o Seri Chowana Tehsil Haveli District Poonch, impleaded as party respondent no. 5 vide Order dated 12th November, 2010. 3. The petitioner's case is that notwithstanding his academic qualification and in particular, B.Ed Degree, he has been placed at Serial No. 3, in the panel prepared by the respondent no. 4, and the candidates having only B.Sc Degree to their credit have been placed at Serial Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner on the basis of his B.Ed Degree claims an edge over the candidates included at Serial Nos. land 2 and seeks quashment of the panel prepared by respondent no. 4. A writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to place the petitioner at Serial No. 1 is also prayed for. 4. Briefly stated the petitioner's case is that GPS Manuwali was upgraded as Upper Primary School under SSA Plan 2007-2008, as was evident from the Advertisement Notice dated 18th April, 2009, and as requirement of Science/Math was not attracted, in case of Primary Schools upgraded under SSA Plan 2007-2008, such requirement could not have been inserted/prescribed by Corrigendum dated 24th April, 2009 and 7th August, 2009. Reliance is placed on the Communication dated 22nd June, 2009, addressed by Secretary to Government, Education Department to Director School Education, Jammu asking the later to require Science/Math background in connection with engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem's in case of Primary Schools upgraded under SSA Plan 2008-2009 as also Advertisement Notice dated 2nd May, 2009, issued by Chief Education Officer, Jammu, inviting applications from eligible candidates for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem in Primary Schools upgraded under SSA Plan 2007-2008 in District Jammu wherein such a requirement is not laid down. 5. The Respondents 1 to 4 oppose the writ petition on the grounds that in terms of Corrigendum dated 24th April, 2009 to the Advertisement Notice dated 18th April, 2009, the requirement of Science/Math is mandatory for appointment as Rehbar-e-Taleem in the Upgraded Primary Schools under SSA Plan 2007-2008 as well as 2008-2009. The Advertisement Notice issued by Chief Education Officer, Jammu wherein the requirement of Science/Math background is omitted, is explained on the grounds that as there is no dearth of Rehbar-e-Taleem's and Teachers with Science/Math background in Jammu District in comparison to the District Poonch, no such condition has been laid down in the said advertisement notice. The respondents also point out that the panel prepared by respondent No. 4 was unsuccessfully questioned in writ petition filed by respondent no. 5 registered as SWP No. 773/2009. Reference is also made to Addendum issued by the respondent no. 3 vide No. CEOP/SSA/921-42 dated 15.7.2009. 6. The respondent No. 5 in his reply has reiterated the stand taken by the official respondent in opposition to the writ petition. 7. I have gone through the pleadings and have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. The Competent Authority in April, 2008, made a policy decision as regards appointment/engagement of ReT in New Primary School/Upper Primary School and decided to lay stress on engagements/appointments of ReTs against the vacancies that become available because of upgradation of Primary Schools/Educational Guarantee Centres or due to the position falling vacant because the engaged candidates quit the job, from amongst the eligible candidates having Mathematics and Science background. The change in policy was made to promote literacy and to improve standard in the Upper Primary Schools and combined language with Mathematics and Science. 9. The change in policy was made to promote literacy and to improve standard in the Upper Primary Schools and combined language with Mathematics and Science. 9. In view of the object of the revised scheme and emphasis on Mathematics and Science Teaching either at Primary or Upper level, the candidates having highest qualification in the concerned subjects i.e. Mathematics or Science, are to be given preference to a candidate having lower qualification in the subject, though such candidate has additional qualification including technical qualification to his credit. It follows that a candidate with Mathematics or Science in his graduation, is to have preference against a candidate with Mathematics and Science at 10+2 level even though such candidate has B.A, B.Ed or M.Ed Degree to his credit. Similarly, a candidate with M.Sc in Mathematics or Science, is to have preference as against the candidate with Mathematics and Science at Graduation level, though he has B.Ed, M.Ed or any other higher degree to his credit in any other discipline — say Arts, Social Science are language. 10. In the present case, the petitioner admittedly has passed his 10+2 examination with Science subject and also has B.A and B.Ed degree to his credit. Petitioner, therefore, cannot claim preference over a candidate who has Bachelor Degree in Science (B.Sc) or higher degree in the subject. The respondents would be justified in placing the petitioner in the order of merit at a place lower to the place given to the candidate having Science subjects in the Graduation level or Master Degree in Science. So viewed, petitioner can have no grievance to placement of the candidate with B.Sc Degree above him in the tentative list prepared by the respondents for Upper Primary Schools, Munawali. 11. Other ground urged in the petition as regards the insertion of a condition, in Advertisement Notice dated 18.4.2009 requiring the candidate to have Science/Math background by a Corrigendums dated 24.04.2009 and 07.8.2009 is equally specious and bereft of any merit. It needs to be pointed out that the revised SSA Scheme became operational w.e.f April, 2008 and any position of ReT that was available on the said date and either became available by up-gradation, creation or vacation, is to be filled up from the candidates with Mathematics/Science background. It needs to be pointed out that the revised SSA Scheme became operational w.e.f April, 2008 and any position of ReT that was available on the said date and either became available by up-gradation, creation or vacation, is to be filled up from the candidates with Mathematics/Science background. The relevant date would be, the date when the advertisement notice is issued and selection process initiated andnot the date when the position fell vacant or became available due to upgradation etc. In the present case, the selection process was initiated on 8.4.2009. The available advertised positions of ReTS, in the circumstances, are to be filled up, having regard to revised SSA Scheme of 2008 irrespective of the date when such positions became available. The petitioner was no where on the scene when the position became available and has no right to insist that the guidelines framed prior to revised SSA Scheme of 2008 are required to be followed and posts filled up from amongst the candidates not necessarily having Mathematics/Science background. 12. For the reasons discussed none of the rights of the petitioner has been violated and the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed in the petition. 13. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.