Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 391 (JK)

Feroza Akhter v. State & Ors.

2012-07-09

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2012
1. By the medium of this petition, petitioner has challenged Order No.ZEO/K/1254-56/09 dated 26.11.2009 passed by respondent no.4, whereby respondent no.5 has been engaged as a Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan in newly upgraded Middle School at Dadipora, Tehsil Kulgam, on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 2. The facts in brief are that an advertisement notice came to be issued on 15.01.2009 in Greater Kashmir inviting applications from the eligible candidates having 10+2 qualification and above with Science and Math background from revenue Village Dadipora. Petitioner and respondent no.5 applied. Petitioner was having math background upto 10+2 level, whereas respondent no.5 was having the math background upto graduation level. 3. Precisely the case of petitioner is that though she is more meritorious than respondent no.5, but the official respondents while ignoring the rules and regulations governing the filed paved the way for making selection of respondent no.5. 4. Respondent no.5 despite service did not appear and, accordingly, he was set exparte. 5. Respondents 1 to 4 have filed reply and resisted the petition. It is contended that respondent no.5 is more meritorious as compared to petitioner. Petitioner is having math background up to 10+2 level, whereas respondent no.5 is having math background upto graduation level and in terms of the rules applicable, qualification with math background is to be given weightage. 6. Mr. Lone, learned counsel for appellant though admitted that respondent no.5 was having math background upto the graduation level and petitioner is only having math background at 10+2 level, but he contested the claim of petitioner on the ground that she is more meritorious than respondent no.5. 7. Now the question arises for consideration is as to whether qualification of graduation with math background is to be given weightage or otherwise. 8. It is apt to reproduce para-5 of the reply herein: "That the respondent no.5 has been appointed purely on qualification and merit basis. The petitioner has not laid any basis for quashing the communication dated 27.05.2009. By virtue of the said communication a candidate having highest qualification in a particular subject is to be considered. The appointment of the respondent no.5 is in accordance with the Scheme as well as the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court because the respondent no.5 is having math background upto B.A., where as the petitioner is having math background upto 10+2 level only." 9. The appointment of the respondent no.5 is in accordance with the Scheme as well as the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court because the respondent no.5 is having math background upto B.A., where as the petitioner is having math background upto 10+2 level only." 9. As per the advertisement, candidates with math and science background only were eligible for the post in question. Therefore, in terms of Government Order No. 1503-Edu of 2003 dated 01.10.2003 read with instructions vide No. DSEK/Legal/91/09/3651 -60 dated 27.05.2009, a candidate having qualification of graduation with particular subject is having edge over a candidate who is having lesser qualification in the said subject. Since respondent no.5 was having math background at the graduation level as compared to petitioner, who was having math background at 10+2 level only, therefore, respondent no.5 came to be engaged for the post in question. 10. This Court in case titled as Joozi Akhter v. State, SWP No.1845/2010, decided on 02.05.2012, has held that apart from 10+2, the reckonable qualification is graduate degree like B.A., B.Sc., B.Com., etc. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in case titled Afroza Jan v. Feroz Ahmad Parray, LPA No.117/2011, decided on 04.08.2011, has, while considering Order No. 1503-Edu of 2003 (supra), held that a candidate having graduation with math background is having edge. It is apt to reproduce para-11 of the judgment herein. "Keeping the above factors in mind, when we examine the case on hand, going by the academic marks secured by the respective candidates, the tentative selection list dated March 2,2009 disclose that the 1st respondent did possess higher percentage of marks both in 10+2 as well as in degree qualification which was also in the relevant subject (viz) Math as compared to the case of the appellant who was in the third place based on the percentage of marks secured by her." 12. Admittedly, respondent no.5 is having math background at the graduation level, thus he is having edge over petitioner. In the given circumstances, petitioner has failed to carve out a case for interference. 13. Viewed thus, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with all CMPs.