Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 519 (JK)

Feroza Akhter v. State of J&K and Ors.

2012-08-23

M.M.KUMAR, MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR

body2012
M.M.Kumar, CJ;— 1. The instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 09.07.2012, rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court holding that the appellant was not entitled to be appointed to the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher in preference to the selected candidate-respondent no. 5 in the newly upgraded Middle School at Dadipora, Tehsil Kulgam. 2. The facts have remained undisputed. The post of Rehbar-e- Taleem was to be filled up by selecting a person having Math background. The appellant had 10+2 qualification with subject of Math whereas respondent no. 5 had Math background upto 10+2 and graduation level also. The question which has been decided by the learned Single Judge is that qualification of graduation with Math background has to be given weightage in preference to those like the appellant who has Math background upto 10+2 level. The aforesaid weightage was also required to be accorded on the basis of communication dated 27.05.2009. The learned Single Judge also placed reliance on two judgments of this Court rendered in the case of Joozi Akhter v. State (SWP No. 1845/2010) decided on 02.05.2012, wherein it was held that in addition to 10+2, the reckonable qualification is graduate degree like B. A, B.Sc, B.Com etc. Again in the case of Afroza Jan v. Feroza Ahmad Parray (LPA No. 117/2011) decided on 04.08.2011, it has been held that a candidate having graduation with Math background would have edge over the one who has 10+2. 3. We have heard Mr. Lone, learned counsel for the appellant at some length and have also perused the paper book with his able assistance. However, we express our inability to accept his contention when he argued that 10+2 with Math qualification is the eligibility and the additional qualification of graduation in Math would be insignificant. Mr. Lone has also complained that the learned Single Judge has failed to take into account the higher qualification of B. A, B.Ed acquired by the appellant. Both the arguments have failed to impress us because a person with higher qualification of Math at graduate level would certainly be better equipped then a person with qualification of 10+2 with Math. Moreover, the communication dated 27.05.2009 issued by the respondent-State has given weightage to higher qualification with Math which selected candidate-respondent no. 5 possess. 4. Both the arguments have failed to impress us because a person with higher qualification of Math at graduate level would certainly be better equipped then a person with qualification of 10+2 with Math. Moreover, the communication dated 27.05.2009 issued by the respondent-State has given weightage to higher qualification with Math which selected candidate-respondent no. 5 possess. 4. The other argument that the appellant is graduate with B.A, B.Ed Degree would also not required any detail consideration because it is conceded that the appellant did not opt Math as a subject at B.A level or at any other degree course. 5. The appeal does not warrant admission, as the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 6. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.