Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 336 (JK)

Sajad Ahmad Kumar v. State & Ors.

2012-06-12

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2012
1. The subject matter of the writ petition is Government Order No. ZEO/K/874-76/09 dated 21st August, 2009-Annexure Q; the Order dated 03-03-2009-Annexure I, Order No. DIPK No. 354 dated 11th April, 2009-Annexure M, Order No. CEO/K/Per/3313/09 dated 30th July, 2009. 2. Petitioner approached this court by the medium of writ petition, SWP No. 692/2009 and sought quashment of tentative selection list of Rehbar-e-Taleem teachers for the upgraded Middle School Pambal Kulgam, was disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the objections of the petitioner before passing the orders. It is apt to reproduce operative part of the judgment and order herein:- "In the given facts and circumstances to entertain the writ petition shall be to scuttle the selection process. At the same time the grievances projected by the petitioner are also required to be addressed so that selection is made in a transparent manner. This writ petition at its infancy stage warrants to be disposed of, as it is also agreed by the appearing counsel for the respondents 6 and 7. Therefore the petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent (CEO) Kulgam to consider the aforesaid objections as raised by the petitioner and any other objections as shall be raised viz-a-viz engagement of ReT in the upgraded M.S. Paranhall school under SSA Scheme returnable to the upgraded M. S. Paranhall. The respondent (CEO) will look into the panel as prepared by the ZEO and also the tentative selection of respondent No. 6 in the background of the objections raised. Before finalizing the list viz-a-viz engagement of ReT in the upgraded M.S. Paranhall, the Chief Education officer shall consider and dispose of the objections specifically." 3. Respondents have thereafter passed the order dated 30th July, 2009 which is impugned in this writ petition. It is apt to reproduce the order impugned herein:- "....Accordingly the posts where notified and published in print media as per modalities fixed by the Govt. on ReT pattern. The tentative selection list was also notified vide this office No. CEO/K/Ret/09/09/11/09, dated 11.04.2009, and the last date for received objections if any was fixed as 18.04.2009 it may be mentioned that no objection was received from any person regarding the tentative selection list of ReTs...." 4. Respondents had been, by virtue of the judgment supra, directed to consider the objections of the petitioner before making decision. Respondents had been, by virtue of the judgment supra, directed to consider the objections of the petitioner before making decision. However, the respondents have stated in the order impugned that no objection was received, meaning thereby they have not even considered the judgment of this court which was conveyed to them and also a legal notice was issued to them by Mr. Haqani on 15th September, 2009, which was received by the Chief Education Officer, Kulgam on 15th September, 2009, vide No. 561 of 2009 and despite that respondents without considering the objections made selection and appointment of private respondent-respondent No. 5. 5. Feeling aggrieved petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. The writ court vide judgment dated 13th December, 2011 allowed the writ petition, quashed the appointment of respondent No. 5 and directed the respondents to make a decision in the matter afresh in terms of the judgment supra passed by this court. 6. The directions being against the interests of respondent No. 5, have been questioned by her by the medium of LPA on the ground that the writ petition has been allowed without affording her an opportunity of hearing or even to file objections. The LPA was allowed and selection/engagement was quashed. 7. LPA Bench after noticing that respondent No. 5, has not filed objections remanded the case back to the writ court with the request that the matter disposed of as early as possible. 8. Respondent No. 5 has filed reply. 9. Mr. Qureshi argued on her behalf that she is not aware of what respondents have done and as to whether objections of the petitioner have been considered or not. But she came to be selected being meritorious and cannot be deprived of her engagement, on the ground that the respondents have not complied with the judgment passed by this court in SWP supra. 10. The impugned order itself indicates that the respondents have not complied with the directions of the judgment despite having notice and conveyed to them by the counsel. 11. In the given circumstances, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that respondents have given a slip to law and have passed the order in breach of the judgment of this court. 12. The impugned order itself indicates that the respondents have not complied with the directions of the judgment despite having notice and conveyed to them by the counsel. 11. In the given circumstances, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that respondents have given a slip to law and have passed the order in breach of the judgment of this court. 12. In the given circumstances, I deem it proper to set aside the impugned order, quash the engagement of the respondent No. 5 which was passed in viola tion of the directions of the court and is void and non-est in the eyes of law. 13. Viewed thus, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 30.7.2009 is quashed. Chief Education Officer, Kulgam is directed to comply with the judgment and order dated 28.4.2009 within eight weeks from the date copy of order is served upon him. 14. Registry to convey the order to Chief Education Officer, Kulgam for compliance. 15. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.