Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 570 (JK)

Bashir Ahmad Khan v. State of J&K

2015-10-30

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR, TASHI RABSTAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. Impugned is the judgment dated 09.06.2015 rendered in SWP Nos. 949/2013 and 1250/2013 titled Bashir Ahmad Khan & ors v. State of J&K & ors, whereunder both the petitions have been dismissed. Vide advertisement notice No. ZEO/A/129-32/13, dated 27.03.2013, applications were invited from eligible candidates belonging to Habitation Dragdan for filling up two vacancies of ReTs, one in Science and another in Math stream, as available in Middle School, Dragdan. No candidate had responded, as a result whereof fresh advertisement notice No. ZEO/246-49 dated 09.04.2013 had been issued inviting applications from the Candidates belonging to Revenue Village Hapatnar. Appellant herein had filed SWP No. 949/2013 seeking quashment of the panel of candidates so prepared with a further prayer for issuing command to the respondents for engaging him as ReT in Middle School, Dragdan. Another petition (SWP No. 1250/2013) is filed by other aggrieved candidates titled Bashir Ahmad Khan and others v. State and others (Bashir Ahmad Khan in this petition has different parentage, that is why he is one of the petitioners in this petition) seeking quashment of the panel so prepared with a further command to the respondents to engage the candidates as against the said vacancies from amongst the candidates belonging to Habitation Hapatnar Zone-B instead of Hapatnar Zone-A. 2. Learned Single Judge after noticing the rival submissions has observed that since no candidate from Habitation Dragdan had responded to the first advertisement notice, therefore, in accordance with Rehbar-e-Taleem scheme zone of consideration had been extended to the Revenue Village, there was no scope, as per scheme, to extend the zone of consideration to the adjoining habitations, therefore, respondent-authorities have rightly extended the zone of consideration to the Revenue Village. 3. Petitioners of SWP No. 1250/2013 have not challenged the judgment, however, it is the appellant who was petitioner in SWP No. 949/2013 who feeling aggrieved has filed this Letters Patent Appeal. 4. The argument as projected by learned counsel for the appellant is that when a candidate was not available from the habitation popularly known as "village" then the zone of Consideration should have been extended to another adjoining village (habitation) as is a requirement in accordance with the explanation added to Govt. Order No. 396 of Edu 2000, dated 28.04.2000. 5. The argument as projected by learned counsel for the appellant is that when a candidate was not available from the habitation popularly known as "village" then the zone of Consideration should have been extended to another adjoining village (habitation) as is a requirement in accordance with the explanation added to Govt. Order No. 396 of Edu 2000, dated 28.04.2000. 5. The contention is serious opposed by learned GA appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 by stating that as per scheme when a candidate is not available from a habitation, zone of consideration has to be extended to the Revenue Village, as has been rightly done by the respondent-authorities. Supporting the submission has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in LPA (SW) No. 96 of 2012 titled Sarfraz Ahmad and Anr. v. State of J&K and Ors. 6. The wording employed in the explanation added below eligibility condition No. i to Govt. Order No. 396 of Edu 2000, dated 28.04.2000 has given rise to a little bit of ambiguity. Same is required to be clarified. For facility of reference, Govt. order No. 288-Edu of 2009, dated 08.04.2009, pursuant to which explanation has been added to Govt. order No. 396 of Edu 2000, (Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme), is relevant to be quoted: Government of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Secretariat Education Department Subject: Rehbar-e-Taleem scheme to ensure people's participation in the management of Education at grass root level. Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009 Dated 08-04-2009 The following explanation is added below Eligibility condition No. I laid down in Government Order No. 396-EDU 2000 dated 28-4-2000 (Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme):- "Explanation:- "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 kilometre 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." The above explanation shall have prospective effect. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. Sd/- Secretary to Government, Education Department The wording "popularly known as village" has been incorrectly recorded because as per explanation village means the Revenue Village. Where in a Revenue Village Habitations are scattered, those Habitations are popularly known as "Mohallas" not as a "Village". 7. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. Sd/- Secretary to Government, Education Department The wording "popularly known as village" has been incorrectly recorded because as per explanation village means the Revenue Village. Where in a Revenue Village Habitations are scattered, those Habitations are popularly known as "Mohallas" not as a "Village". 7. Learned counsel projected an argument that by employing the word "popularly known as a village" the scheme of Rehbar-e-Taleem as was sanctioned to be launched in terms of Govt. order No. 396-Edu of 2000, dated 28.04.2000, provides as to what should be the eligibility. Eligibility condition No. ii reads as under: "He or she should belong to the village where there is assessed deficiency of staff on the certification of VLC that no local candidate from within the village is available, VLC can draw up the panel from the adjoining village." According to learned counsel, in terms of the explanation, when no candidate is available from the Habitation (village) then the candidate from adjoining Habitation (Village) shall be eligible to the exclusion of all others. If such contention is accepted then a strange situation will arise i.e. when the revenue village is scattered then the candidates belonging to the habitations around the village in different directions may also claim superior right of consideration which in turn will include most of the habitations and such a meaning if given to it will result in further complicacies and ambiguities. The intent is clear i.e. when a school is located in a Habitation of a Revenue Village satisfying two conditions i.e. Habitation is one kilometre away from other Habitations and has a population of more than 300 persons, Habitation in a Revenue Village is never known as a village but is known as a "Mohalla" and the Mohallas will constitute a Habitation only on satisfying aforesaid two conditions. The view taken is in keeping with the Rehbar-e-Taleem scheme. 8. The concept of Rehbar-e-Taleem scheme as reflected in Govt. order No. 396-Edu of 2000, dated 28.04.2000 suggests that a person to be provided to make up the deficiency of staff at the preliminary level of education will be designated as Rehbar-e-Taleem. The underlying object is to posit the role of the teaching guide as catalyst for the quality education and to ensure the overall development of the personality of the children. The underlying object is to posit the role of the teaching guide as catalyst for the quality education and to ensure the overall development of the personality of the children. Drawn from the local community, the accountability of the teacher called as "Rehbar-e-Taleem" would be immediately providing for constant interface and interaction with the community to secure universal enrolment and to check the incidence of drop outs. The eligibility as prescribed in the said Govt. order is quoted here-under: Eligibility: (i) Rehbar-e-Taleem should be the permanent resident of the State; (ii) He or she should belong to the village where there is assessed deficiency of staff on the certification of VLC that no local candidate from within the village is available, VLC can draw up the panel from the adjoining village. (iii) He or she should possess the minimum qualification of 10+2. (iv) The candidate shall as far as possible fulfil the age qualification as prescribed by the State Government. (v) Due consideration shall be given by the VLCs to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 9. The guidelines regarding selection of Rehbar-e-Taleems have been issued vide Govt. Order No. 1639-Edu of 2003, dated 12.11.2003 in partial modification of Govt. Order No. 1620-Edu of 2003, dated 24.03.2003, which provides: (i) In case a qualified candidate is not available in a village, the selection process shall be extended to a Halqa Panchayat; (ii) In case a candidate is not available within the Halqa Panchayat Education zone shall be taken into account as a unit for selection. 10. In terms of Govt. Order No. 1639-Edu of 2003, dated 12.11.2003, it is amply clear that the candidates to be selected for Rehbar-e-Taleem must belong to a Habitation. In case of non-availability, zone of consideration has to be extended to a Village and in case of non-availability from the Village to Halqa Panchayat, then to the Education zone. 11. Habitation, in-effect, is a "Mohalla" of a Revenue village. When a candidate is not available from the Habitation popularly known as "Mohalla" satisfying two conditions as referred above, then zone of consideration has to be extended to the Revenue Village not to an adjoining Habitation popularly known as a "Mohalla" wrongly quoted in the explanation as "Village". 12. 11. Habitation, in-effect, is a "Mohalla" of a Revenue village. When a candidate is not available from the Habitation popularly known as "Mohalla" satisfying two conditions as referred above, then zone of consideration has to be extended to the Revenue Village not to an adjoining Habitation popularly known as a "Mohalla" wrongly quoted in the explanation as "Village". 12. Learned Single Judge has rightly concluded that the interpretation as propounded by the appellant would result into controversy i.e. candidates from all other 12 habitations would claim eligibility to the exclusion of candidates from other habitations. For the reasons stated hereinabove, judgment impugned does not call for any interference, same is maintained. Appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.