Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 115 (JK)

Sajad Hussain Mir v. State and Others

2014-03-17

TASHI RABSTAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Tashi Rabstan, J.—By the medium of this petition, the petitioner is seeking to quash Notification, bearing No. DIPK-8879 published in Daily Greater Kashmir in its issue dated 21.10.2013 with a direction to the official respondents to select him against the post of Language Teacher (Language subject) for Middle School Woolina, Ichigam, on the grounds taken in the writ petition. The facts, as averred in the writ petition, are that in pursuance Notification No DIPK-6707 published in Srinagar Times in its issue dated 31.08.2013 applications were invited from the eligible candidates belonging to habitation Woolina and Revenue Village Babapora for filling up three posts of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers, i.e., Science/Math Teacher, Social Science Teacher and Language Teacher in Middle School Woolina and Middle School Babapora. Petitioner and respondents 5 & 6 applied for selection against two posts of Social Science Teacher and Language Teacher. The official respondents vide the impugned notification selected respondent No. 5 against the post of Language Teacher and respondent No. 6 against the post of Social Science Teacher. The case of the petitioner as projected in the writ petition is that since respondent No. 5 had opted for selection against the post of Social Science, therefore, he should have been selected against that very post in place of respondent No. 6 being more meritorious and not against the post of Language Teacher. By doing so, the official respondents have deprived the petitioner from his selection against the post of Language Teacher. It is contended that for selection against the post of Social Science Teacher, the required qualification was B.A. with B.Ed., whereas the required qualification for Language post was B.A. with Urdu/Hindi as one of the subjects with B.Ed. It is further contended that since respondent No. 5 was more meritorious than respondent No. 6, therefore, he should have been selected against the post of Social Science, whereas the petitioner should have been selected against the post of Language Teacher. Being aggrieved of his non-selection, the petitioner has approached this Court by the medium of instant writ petition. 2. Objections have been filed on behalf of respondents. In the objections filed by the official respondents it is submitted that the qualification of respondent No. 5 was B.A., B.Ed, with Urdu and Social Studies as one of the subjects upto graduation level and was having 56.27% marks. 2. Objections have been filed on behalf of respondents. In the objections filed by the official respondents it is submitted that the qualification of respondent No. 5 was B.A., B.Ed, with Urdu and Social Studies as one of the subjects upto graduation level and was having 56.27% marks. In addition to this, he also possessed Post Graduation Degree in Persian Subject. The qualification of respondent No. 6 was B.A., B.Ed, with Social Studies as one of the subjects upto graduation level and was having 52.83% marks, whereas the qualification of petitioner was B.A. and B.Ed, with Urdu as his main subject upto the graduation level and was having only 48.44% marks. Thus, it is contended on behalf of official respondents that being more meritorious than the petitioner, they considered the candidature of respondents 5 and 6 for appointment against the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers for Language and Social Science Subjects respectively. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The record so produced reveals that the petitioner applied for the post of Language Teacher, respondent No. 6 against the post of Social Science Teacher and respondent No. 5 had applied for both the posts of Language as well as Social Science Teacher. It is not disputed by the petitioner that private respondents are more meritorious than the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that since he was the only candidate who had applied for the post of Language Teacher, therefore, instead of respondent No. 5, he should have been selected against the said post, is not based on facts. In a nutshell, the petitioner has questioned the selection of respondent No. 5 against the post of Language Teacher only on the ground that since respondent No. 5 had applied against both the posts giving his first preference to the post of Social Science Teacher, he ought to have been selected against the said post only, instead against the post of Language Teacher, as he was having better merit than respondent No. 6, who was selected against the post of Social Science Teacher. 5. 5. A perusal of the record makes it clear that respondent No. 5 had not only applied against the post of Social Science but also had applied against the post of Language Teacher, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that respondent No. 5 could not have been selected against the post of Language Teacher is not well founded and is incorrect. The impugned select list issued by the official respondents is strictly on the basis of merit as well as preference given by the candidates at the time of applying for the posts in question. The contention of the petitioner is, therefore, against the record. 6. In view of the above, this writ petition merits to be dismissed. Dismissed as such. Respondents are, accordingly directed to issue appointment orders in favour of the selected candidates. Interim direction shall stand vacated. Registry is directed to return the record against proper receipt.