Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 790 (JK)

Javed Iqbal v. State of J&K & Ors.

2012-12-21

M.M.KUMAR, MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2012
Per Mansoor J;— 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.09.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No.222/2010 in a case, titled as, Amreena Kouser vs State of J&K & others, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, respondent no.5 herein, came to be allowed, with a direction to the official respondents to issue engagement order in favour of writ petitioner after proper verification in accordance with rules (for short, impugned judgment). 2. The facts in brief are that vide Advertisement notice No.CEOP/SSA/545-566 dated 18.04.2009, issued by the Chief Education Officer, Poonch, applications were invited from the eligible candidates having Science or Math stream for filling up the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers in Government Middle School, Thamlote, Village Chajla, Education Zone Mankote. Appellant and writ petitioner applied. Writ petitioner secured 52.27% marks, whereas appellant secured only 38.50% marks at the 10+2 level, yet official respondents made selection of appellant herein on the ground that he was having Bachelor’s Degree in Arts stream to his credit. Feeling aggrieved the writ petitioner questioned the tentative selection of appellant herein by the medium of SWP No.222/2010 on the ground that in terms of the guidelines/norms of Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme read with advertisement notice, a candidate who was having Science or Math background to his credit at 10+2 level was to be taken into consideration, and if any candidate was having Graduation Degree in Science or Math stream was to be given weightage/preference. 3. It was contended that since Graduation Degree in Arts was not relevant, as the post in question was meant for candidates having Science stream, therefore, selecting the appellant herein against the post in question by the official respondents was illegal. It was contended that the writ petitioner was having better merit at 10+2 level; therefore, she was entitled to be selected and appointed. 4. Writ Court after examining the pleadings and the record held that admittedly the writ petitioner was higher in merit at 10+2 level in science stream as compared to appellant herein and directed the official respondents to issue engagement order in favour of writ petitioner. 5. The moot question for consideration in this appeal is: whether Bachelor’s Degree in Arts was relevant and reckonable qualification for making selection against the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem in Science? The answer is in negative for the following reasons. 6. 5. The moot question for consideration in this appeal is: whether Bachelor’s Degree in Arts was relevant and reckonable qualification for making selection against the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem in Science? The answer is in negative for the following reasons. 6. In terms of the conditions contained in paragraph 3 of the advertisement notice, a candidate must have the basic qualification of 10+2 in Science or Math subjects. Therefore, the candidates who were having Math or Science subjects had to apply and were to be considered on the basis of their merit. In terms of Government Order No.Edu-1503 of 2003 dated 01.10.2003, apart from 10+2, the reckonable qualification is graduate degree. 7. Now the question is whether a candidate who was not having graduate degree in Math or Science was to be given any weightage/preference while working out the comparative merit of candidates in the relevant subjects. 8. The advertisement notice specifically provides that the candidates who were having Math or Science subjects had to apply; meaning thereby the selection was to be made only amongst those candidates who were having Science or Math background in the relevant discipline. A candidate who was having basic qualification at 10+2 level in Math or Science stream and was better in merit was to be considered. However, a candidate who was having basic qualification in Math or Science at 10+2 level and was lower in merit, but possesses graduate degree in different subjects, which were not relevant for the post in question, could not be allowed to give an edge over a candidate who was having higher merit at the 10+2 level in the relevant subjects. 9. A Division Bench of this Court (Srinagar Bench) in Afroza Jan vs Feroz Ahmad Parray & others, LPA No.117/2011, decided on 04.08.2011, has held that the degree in the relevant subject, viz., Math or Science is to be counted and compared. It would be appropriate to reproduce paragraphs 08 and 11 thereof hereunder: “8. Having considered the respective submissions and having perused the materials placed before us, at the very outset, we state that for engagement as Ret, indisputably, the basic qualification is 10+2. However, the State Government came forward with Government Order No. 1503-Edu of 2003 dated October, 1, 2003 wherein, in paragraph 1, it was stated that, apart from 10+2 the reckonable qualification is graduate degree like B. A., B. Sc., B. Com., etc. However, the State Government came forward with Government Order No. 1503-Edu of 2003 dated October, 1, 2003 wherein, in paragraph 1, it was stated that, apart from 10+2 the reckonable qualification is graduate degree like B. A., B. Sc., B. Com., etc. As far as M. A. Edu. M. Ed, was concerned the said order stated that both are to be treated on par and the candidates possessing M. A. Edu. Or M. Ed. are eligible for appointment/promotion as +2 Lecturers. The persons possessing B. Ed./M. Ed. are stated to be carrying a professional edge vis-à-vis an academic postgraduate degree and that extra weightage is, therefore, to be allowed to the persons with B. Ed./M. Ed. which is relevant to the teaching and learning process. Paragraph 6 of the Government Order further expanded the scope of allowing any other graduates of other disciplines also to be treated on par with graduate degree mentioned in para 1. …… 11. 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) Maths as compared to the case of the appellant who was in the third place based on the percentage of marks secured by her.” 10. Further, a Division Bench of this Court (Srinagar Bench) in Rouf Ahmad Kumar vs State of J&K & others, LPA No.154/2012, decided on 24.09.2012, has held that a candidate having graduation degree in a specific subject is to be taken into consideration and not of other stream. It would be appropriate to reproduce paragraph 03 thereof hereunder: “We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment. We are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judges does not suffer from any legal infirmity or such an irregularity which may warrant interference at the hands of the Letters Patent Bench. It would be appropriate to reproduce paragraph 03 thereof hereunder: “We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment. We are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judges does not suffer from any legal infirmity or such an irregularity which may warrant interference at the hands of the Letters Patent Bench. The purpose sought to be accomplished, as per the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) and one reflected in the Advertisement notification itself could only be achieved with the merit of the competing candidates as determined on the basis of the subject specific degrees and by excluding consideration like graduation degree in Arts stream which could not be given any credence.” 11. Admittedly, in the present case the appellant was having lower merit at 10+2 level and his Bachelor’s Degree in Arts was not to be taken into consideration while assessing the comparative merit of the candidates. The Writ Court, thus, has rightly directed the respondents to issue engagement order in favour of writ petitioner. The judgment is legal one and needs no interference. 12. Having glance of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the appeal merits dismissal and the judgment of learned Single Bench merits to be upheld. Accordingly, we do so. The appeal is dismissed along with all connected CMAs.