Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 286 (JK)

Aarti Gupta v. State

2014-07-10

M.M.Kumar, TASHI RABSTAN

body2014
Tashi Rabstan, J. A. Cond (LSW) No. 67/2014 (in LPASW No. 100/2014) 1. Appellants are seeking condonation of 64 days delay which has crept-in in filing the appeal. 2. We have gone through the averments made in the application and are of the considered view that the appellants have made out a sufficient cause to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay caused in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. B. Perip No.09/2014 (in LPASW No.101/2014) 3. By the medium of this application, the appellants are seeking leave to file the appeal. For the reasons detailed in the application, the prayer made is allowed. Application accordingly stands disposed of. C. Cond(LSW) No.68/2014 (in LPASW No.101/2014) 4. Appellants are seeking condonation of 67 days delay which has crept-in filing this appeal also. 5. We have gone through the averments made in the application and are of the considered view that the appellants have made out sufficient cause to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay caused in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. D. LPASW Nos.100/2014 and 101/2014 6. Both the appeals are taken up on Board. These appeals have arisen out of a common judgment passed by the learned Writ Court. The appellants in both the appeals are same and common question of facts and law is involved in these appeals, therefore, same are being disposed of by this common judgment. 7. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 25.02.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby SWP No. 584/2012 preferred by writ petitioners Arti Gupta and Renu Bala, appellants herein, seeking a direction to the official respondents to conduct the selection process on the basis of revenue village and not on habitation basis, came to be dismissed; whereas SWP No.343/2012 preferred by writ petitioner Nisha Devi came to be allowed with a direction to the official respondents to operate the select list/tentative list of the candidates of Village Korithial, Ramkot for their engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers. 8. The facts leading to the filing of present appeals, as borne out from the writ records, are that an advertisement notice dated 10.02.2010 came to be issued for filling up various posts of Rehabar-e-Taleem Teachers in different schools including two posts in Primary School Korithial. One post was meant for Math stream and another for Science stream. 8. The facts leading to the filing of present appeals, as borne out from the writ records, are that an advertisement notice dated 10.02.2010 came to be issued for filling up various posts of Rehabar-e-Taleem Teachers in different schools including two posts in Primary School Korithial. One post was meant for Math stream and another for Science stream. Writ petitioners in both the petitions also applied. Writ petitioner Nisha Devi was asked to fulfill the stipulations as contained in communication dated 17.03.2011. When despite supplying the requisite documents the official respondents did not publish the tentative panel, she filed SWP No. 922/2010, which carne to be disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to strictly observe the rules and Government Order No.288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009 while making selection-in-question. Official respondents accordingly issued the tentative list, wherein writ petitioner Nisha Devi was shown at Sr. No.2 for Math stream, whereas one Banvir Singh stood at Sr. No. I for Science stream. When official respondents despite issuance of tentative list did not finalize the select list, writ petitioner Nisha Devi again filed SWP No.343/2012 seeking a direction to the official respondents to operate the tentative list. 9. Meanwhile, writ petitioners Arti Gupta and Renu Bala, appellants herein, also filed SWP No.584/2012 seeking a direction to the official respondents to conduct the selection process on the basis of revenue village and not on habitation basis. Learned Writ Court vide common order dated 25.02.2014. impugned herein, allowed the writ petition filed by writ petitioner Nisha Devi and dismissed the writ petition filed by writ petitioners Arti Gupta and Renu Bala. It is this order which is being challenged by writ petitioners Arti Gupta and Renu Bala by way of instant appeals. 10. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 11. Undisputed facts of the case are that two posts of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers were advertised for Primary School Korithial, Zone Bhaddu. Learned Writ Court while disposing of SWP No.922/2010 gave a specific direction to the official respondents to strictly observe the rules and Government order No. 288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009 [Refer 2012 (16) JKS JK-701] while making the selection-in-question. For ready reference the relevant portion of order dated 08.04.2009 is reproduced herein. "Village means a Revenue Village. Learned Writ Court while disposing of SWP No.922/2010 gave a specific direction to the official respondents to strictly observe the rules and Government order No. 288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009 [Refer 2012 (16) JKS JK-701] while making the selection-in-question. For ready reference the relevant portion of order dated 08.04.2009 is reproduced herein. "Village means a Revenue Village. However, where habitations in a Revenue Village are scattered, a candidate belonging to a habitation, popularly known as a village, at least one kilometer away from other habitations and having a population of more than 300 persons, shall be entitled to seek engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem in a local School." 12. The appellants herein did not challenge the order of learned Writ Court in view of the fact that the Revenue Department had already certified that Korithial is a separate habitation having population of more than 300 persons; whereas the case projected by the appellants in their writ petition was that the selection-in-question should have been made on the basis of revenue village and not on habitation basis. 13. The stand taken by the official respondents before the Writ Court was that no doubt the appellants herein were more meritorious than other candidates, but they could not find their place in the tentative panel in the light of the Government Order No.288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009, as both the appellants were residing at Ramkot town which is at least one kilometer away from habitation Korithial where the school-in-question is located. Further stand of the official respondents before the Writ Court was that the Revenue Department had already made it clear that Korithial is a separate habitation with population of 300 plus and distance from other surrounding habitations is at least one kilometer. Therefore, in view of Government order dated 08.04.2009 (supra), the selection-in-question was to be made on habitation basis and not on the basis of revenue village. It has also been revealed from the objections that requisite steps were taken to operate the selection list, but because of interim order passed by the learned Writ Court in SWP No.584/2012 the selection-in-question could not be made. 14. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants, gone through the file and perused the judgment. We are of the considered view that the appellants have failed to demonstrate any illegality in the order impugned passed by the learned Writ Court. 14. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants, gone through the file and perused the judgment. We are of the considered view that the appellants have failed to demonstrate any illegality in the order impugned passed by the learned Writ Court. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Writ Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting any interference. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed along with the connected CMAs.