Per Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.;— 1. Two posts of Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReTs) with mathematics and science back ground, became available in the upgraded Primary School, Gund Mam Dar, Beeru, Badgam. In order to supply the vacancies, Advertisement Notification was issued by the official respondents inviting applications from the residents of revenue village Gund Mam Dar. The minimum prescribed qualification was 10+2 with mathematics and science background. The writ petitioner —appellant herein as also the private respondent No.5. responded to the said Notification. Respondent No.5 was selected for being appointed on the post of ReT with science background as he was possessed of 10+2 and was also a graduate. The appellant challenged the selection of the respondent No.5 by medium of SWP 281/2011, which was dis missed by the learned Single Judge vide its judgement dated 06-11-2012 on the premise that respondent No.5, besides having eligibility qualification of 10+2 was a science graduate, thus, possessed of superior merit than that of the appellant, who was only having qualification of 10+2. It is this judgement, which is called in question in this LPA. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is, admit tedly, possessed of superior merit at 10+2 level than that of the private respondent. He submitted that the private respondent is an Arts graduate and not a Science graduate. Learned counsel further submitted that since the vacancy to be supplied was subject specific, viz. the candidate was required to have academic qualification in science subjects and since the respondent No.5 was not a science graduate and in view of the superior merit of the appellant at 10+2 level, it was he (appellant), who was to be selected/engaged as ReT. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned judgement deserves to be set aside and the writ petition requires to be allowed. 3. Mr. Naik, learned AAG, appearing for official respondents, submitted that the private respondent is not a Science graduate but an Arts graduate. He also admitted that the appellant is possessed of more merit than the private respondent at 10+2 level. He submitted further that on a mistaken notion, the writ Court was informed that the private respondent is a Science graduate and it is for this reason that the writ petition has been dismissed.
He also admitted that the appellant is possessed of more merit than the private respondent at 10+2 level. He submitted further that on a mistaken notion, the writ Court was informed that the private respondent is a Science graduate and it is for this reason that the writ petition has been dismissed. Learned counsel submitted that it has been the consistent view taken by this Court that when a post required to be filled up is subject specific, then the higher qualification has to be in the same subject and higher qualification in any other subject will not be considered. Learned counsel, accordingly, supported the claim of the appellant — writ petitioner. 4. Mr. Nisar Ahmad, learned counsel for the private respondent, though, admitted that at 10+2 level, the appellant is possessed of superior merit than that of the private respondent yet he stated that the appeal would require to be dismissed as the private respondent is a graduate, thus, possessed of superior merit than that of the appellant — writ petitioner. Learned counsel also submitted that in view of the government order No. 1503-Edu of 2003 dated 01-10-2003, the B.A Arts qualifi cation of the respondent No.5, was to be considered by the official respondents and it is for this reason that the said respondent was selected and engaged as ReT. Learned counsel referred to the Division Bench judgement of this Court dated 04-08-2011 passed in LPA 117/2011 titled Afroza Jan v. Feroz Ahmad Parray and others and submitted that the claim of the private respondent in respect of his graduation certificate has to be accepted in view of the law laid down by the said judgement. Learned counsel, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. The respondent No.5 at paragraph (3) of his objections filed against the writ petition has admitted that he has secured 255/600 marks at 10+2 level (Science) whereas the writ petitioner has secured 413/750 marks at 10+2 level (Science). The private respondent has further stated in the same paragraph that he is a graduate in Arts and has secured 819/1800 marks. In view of the admission of the private respondent No.5 in his objections, it becomes writ large on the face of the record that the appellant is possessed of superior merit than that of the private respondent at 10+2 level.
In view of the admission of the private respondent No.5 in his objections, it becomes writ large on the face of the record that the appellant is possessed of superior merit than that of the private respondent at 10+2 level. Whether any credence can be given to a degree of graduation in Arts subjects has to be ascertained in the facts of this case and in view of the stand of the Government. 6. The Commissioner Secretary to Govt., Department of School Education, in her affidavit filed on 18-10-2011, has stated that Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme (RTS), which was launched vide Government order No. 396-Edu of 2000 dated 28-04-2000, was stopped with immediate effect vide Govt. order No. 1670-Edu of 2003 dated 24-11-2003 and a centrally sponsored scheme called Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme (SSA) was launched. It is also stated in the said affidavit that in the SSA Scheme, the mode and pattern of RTS was adopted for filling up of the posts in the new Primary Schools and upgraded Primary Schools. 7. The SSA scheme was amended in April 2008 and it was provided that from amongst every three posts, two posts must be filled up from amongst the candi dates, who are having science and mathematics background. The State Govern ment, accordingly, issued instructions to all the concerned authorities for filling up the posts created under SSA scheme in the aforementioned manner. The Govern ment order No. 1503-Edu of 2003 dated 01-10-2003 provided for giving of weightage to the qualification possessed by a candidate over and above the 10+2 qualification. The purpose of having a subject specific teacher would be defeated in case a candidate having higher qualification in different subject is selected. A candidate having higher qualification in Arts subject would not make any difference to the students, who are to be taught science or mathematics subjects. Since the selec tion/engagement is to be made on the basis of respective merit of the competing candidates, so a higher qualification in a subject other than science and mathematics is to be excluded and the comparative merit of the competing candidates is to be determined on the basis of their qualifications in science and mathematics subjects respectively.
Since the selec tion/engagement is to be made on the basis of respective merit of the competing candidates, so a higher qualification in a subject other than science and mathematics is to be excluded and the comparative merit of the competing candidates is to be determined on the basis of their qualifications in science and mathematics subjects respectively. The Government order No. 1503-Edu of 2003 dated 01-10-2003, on which whole hog reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the private respondent, will not change the fate of the case in his favour, in as much as, the said Government order is to be read and interpreted in a manner which would advance the cause of amendment introduced in the SSA scheme in 2008, whereunder, as already stated, it is specifically provided that from amongst three posts of teachers, one post with science background and one with mathematics background shall be filled up. The Government order of 2003 aforementioned provides that the higher qualifications have to be considered. When, in the advertisement notification, it is specifically stated that one post with science and one with mathematics background is to be filled up, then a candidate's higher qualification has to synchronize with the tone and tenor of the said notification, which otherwise would mean that higher qualification has to be in the same subject. The argument of the learned counsel for the private respondent that even the higher qualification in Arts subjects has to be considered, cannot be, thus, accepted. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant as also learned counsel for the official respondents relied upon the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court passed in LPA 117/2011. Paragraph (12) of the said judgement does not advance the cause of the private respondent No.5. 9. For our above stated reasons, we allow this Appeal in the following manner: a) The impugned judgement dated 06-11-2012 passed in SWP 281/2011 is set aside; b)' SWP 281/2011 is allowed and order of selection/engagement of respondent No.5 is quashed. Consequently, official respondents are directed to select and appoint the appellant — writ petitioner as Rehbar-e-Taleem in the upgraded Primary School, Gund Mam Dar, Beeru, Badgam, forthwith. 10. Disposed of along with connected CMPs.