Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 168 (JK)

Abida Banoo v. State & Ors.

2012-04-17

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2012
1. In pursuance to an exercise, which began with issuance of an advertisement notice for filling up two posts of Rehbar-e-Taleem in Primary School Malikpora Kathipora, a panel was prepared and candidates figuring at serial number 1 and 2 were engaged and one Syed Shahnawaz Lateef Bukhari-respondent No. 5 was figuring in the waiting list. 2. Accordingly disengaged and consequent whereof respondent No. 4 forwarded the panel/recommendation for engagement of respondent No. 5, who was later on appointed. 3. The grievance projected by the petitioner in this writ petition is that respondents 1 to 4 ought to have issued a fresh advertisement notice instead of making operational the earlier panel-waiting list. 4. The assertion is resisted by the official as well as by private respondent. 5. In terms of Govt. Order No. 503-Edu of 2010 dated 10th June, 2010 read with Govt. Order No. 396-Edu of 2000 dated 28th January, 2000, respondents had to prepare the panel 1-1/2 times for number of posts required and the panel remains operative for a period of six months from the date it is given effect to. 6. It is apt to reproduce operative portion of the Govt. Order No. 503-Edu of 2010 dated 10th June, 2010 herein:- "Whereas, the panel to be drawn up for selection of Rehbar-e-Taleem has to be 11/2 times of the assessed requirement of Rehbar-e-Taleem as per the provisions of the Government order No: 396-Edu of 2000 dated 28.1.2000; Whereas, the Department is required to select only 2 ReT for a new primary school/upgraded primary school out of the panel drafted as per mandate of the scheme and as such it would be appropriate that the panel remains valid only for six months from the date of issuance of engagement order in favour of selected candidate. Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered that:- I The validity of panel to be drawn for the selection of ReT in any newly opened primary school/up-graded primary school shall, henceforth, be six months from the date of issuance of engagement order in favour of the selected candidates. II The applications for the posts of ReT shall be received by the concerned ZEO within a period of ten days from the date of notification of such posts. II The applications for the posts of ReT shall be received by the concerned ZEO within a period of ten days from the date of notification of such posts. III The list of candidates applying for the ReT posts, so advertised shall be drawn, as far as possible, within a period of one week and the objections to the panel so framed, if any, shall be invited from all concerned with a weeks time. IV The list of candidates applying for the post of ReT in a particular school shall be framed separately by the concerned ZEO as per the guidelines of the scheme, out of which a panel of candidates shall be drawn in order of merit, which shall be 11/2 times the number of posts required to be filled up. In case of an upgraded primary school the panel shall be separate for1 the candidates with Math and Science background which shall also be 11/2 times the number of posts required to be filled up in each case." 7. The case of the respondents is that they have prepared the panel in terms of the said Govt. Order and it has not been questioned in the writ petition. The purpose of preparing the panel by 1-1/2 times the number of posts required is in the interests of students and fresh process takes a considerable time and resultantly students suffer. 8. Admittedly the petitioner has not questioned the above referred Govt. Orders. Now the question is whether the engagement of respondent No. 5 is valid? 9. To have the question answered, a reproduction of the relevant facts is impera live, thus:- The panel was prepared in the matter on 26th July, 2010, wherein, Saima Hussain and Bashir Ahmad Lone, were shown to be figuring at serial number 1 and 2 and thus were selected. Respondent No. 5 is shown to be at serial number 3. 10. After her engagement on 15th October, 2010 along with said Bashir Ahmad Lone, Sauna Hussain, on the ground of unauthorized absence, was disengaged on 18th March, 2011. 11. The panel was made operational only thereafter and at that relevant point of time, only a period of five months had passed by, therefore, the Govt. Order supra has not been violated but followed in letter and spirit. 12. 11. The panel was made operational only thereafter and at that relevant point of time, only a period of five months had passed by, therefore, the Govt. Order supra has not been violated but followed in letter and spirit. 12. In the given circumstances, the exercise made by the official respondents by appointing respondent No. 5 does not suffer from any illegality. 13. The writ petition, therefore, is without any merit and dismissed as such. ERRATA TO SWP No. 1126/2011 Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Judge. Abida Banoo Vs. State & Ors. Date: 23.7.2012 The aforementioned writ petition was decided by judgment dated 17.04.2012. Copy of the judgment was produced in another case involving identical controversy. On perusal of the copy of the judgment, it was found that paragraph 2 of the judgment was incomplete and something was missing therein. Consequently, the case file was called for from the Register]/in order to see the original judgment placed on record of the case file. Perusal thereof revealed that paragraph no. 2 of the judgment had been misprinted. The judgment writer was required to print out one more copy of the judgment passed in the aforementioned case. While perusing the print out copy of the judgement supra, it transpired that in paragraph no. 2, two lines of the judgement are missing, which in my opinion have gone unnoticed because of misprint of the copy of the judgement. The mistake obviously is a bonafide mistake having crept in inadvertently. Accordingly, in terms of powers under Section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure, the error that has crept in the judgment is rectified and it is ordered that in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment, the first two lines be read as: "I. One of the selected candidates namely Saima Hussain remained unauthorized absent and was" Paragraph no. 2 of the judgment shall accordingly read as follows: "One of the selected candidates namely Saima Hussain remained unauthorized absent and was accordingly disengaged and consequent whereof respondent no. 4 forwarded the panel/recommendation for reengagement of respondent no. 5, who was later on appointed." This order shall form part of the judgment dated 17.04.2012. Registry shall inform the learned counsel for the parties accordingly.