Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 568 (JK)

Sudesh Singh v. State of J&K

2015-10-30

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. 1. In the present petition, the petitioner seeks the issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the tentative select panel prepared by the official respondents for engagement of private respondent Nos. 5 & 6 as R-e-T Teacher. It appears that an advertisement notice dated 22.12.2011 was issued for engagement of R-e-T Teacher for district Ramban, which included inter alia two posts in New Primary School (NPS) Rand Gali falling in village Halla B of Zone Ramban. 2. The petitioner as also private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 applied for the said posts. Finally, the Zonal Education Officer, Ramban prepared the tentative Select Panel, which is impugned in the present petition. According to the select panel, wherein private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have been shown at serial Nos. 1 and 2, the petitioner is reflected at serial No. 3. In the select panel, the residences of the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as also the petitioner have been shown as Halla Dhandrath. 3. The petitioner, however, questions the said select panel on the ground that the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are, in fact, residents of village Dhar Dhandrath, which is a different village altogether and, therefore, were not eligible to be considered for village Halla B. 4. With a view to support this assertion, the petitioner has placed on record the permanent residence certificates of the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Rev.), Ramban, reflecting the said respondents to be the residents of "village Dhar at present Dhandrath". What is sought to be emphasized is the fact that the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are not the residents of village Halla B. 5. Reply has been filed by the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 wherein the assertions made by the petitioner are controverted. It is stated that the said private respondents were indeed the residents of village Dhar, but had migrated to village Halla B more than two decades ago along with their family members. 6. Reply has been filed by the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 wherein the assertions made by the petitioner are controverted. It is stated that the said private respondents were indeed the residents of village Dhar, but had migrated to village Halla B more than two decades ago along with their family members. 6. It is stated that pursuant to sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Jammu and Kashmir Panchayati Raj Act, 1989 and the rules framed thereunder, the Director Rural Development Jammu vide order dated 29.5.2007 had notified the panch constituencies of Revenue Village Dandrath whereby revenue village Dandrath was trifurcated into Dandrath A (Jawag), Dandrath B (Halla) and Dandrath-C (Dugson). A copy of the said Govt. Order dated 29.5.2007 has been placed on record along with the reply as Annexure: R-25 by the respondents. 7. A reference to the aforementioned order issued by the Director Rural Development Jammu would show that Dandrath-B (Halla) constituted of the following constituencies: "i. Battanshali ii. Laggali iii. Chola iv. Kotesoul v. Upper Halla vi. Seri vii. Patal viii. Chail" 8. Reliance was also placed on the certificates issued by the Sarpanch of Panch Halqa Dandrath-B, certifying that the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were, in fact, the residents of Ward No. 2, Halla-B of District Ramban. An extract of the record of rights placed as Annexure: R-17 also reflects the father of the said respondents to be the resident of village Halla. 9. A lot of emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the petitioner on highlighting the fact that in the permanent residence certificates issued in favour of the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 by the office of the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner, Ramban the residents of the said private respondents have been reflected as Dhar and not Halla, which was the requirement as per the advertisement notice. However, as can be seen from the Govt. order dated 29.5.2007, the village Dandrath had been trifurcated and village Halla fell in Dandrath-B, therefore, the permanent residence certificates issued in favour of the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 cannot be misconstrued to reflect the residence of the said private respondents as being one far removed from village Halla where the school was situate. 10. order dated 29.5.2007, the village Dandrath had been trifurcated and village Halla fell in Dandrath-B, therefore, the permanent residence certificates issued in favour of the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 cannot be misconstrued to reflect the residence of the said private respondents as being one far removed from village Halla where the school was situate. 10. Having gone through the documents on record, I have no hesitation in holding that there was enough material, which would suggest that the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were, in fact, eligible for consideration as being residents of village Halla and, therefore, no fault can be found with their placement in the tentative select panel prepared by the official respondents. Be that as it may, the petition is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed along with connected applications.