Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 350 (JK)

SUDESH SINGH v. STATE OF J&K

2016-07-12

B.S.WALIA, RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : B.S. Walia, J. Caveat discharged. Instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Writ Court dated 30.10.2015 dismissing SWP No. 820/2012 with a prayer for setting aside the same and allowing the writ petition. 2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant Letters Patent Appeal are that SWP No. 820/2012 was filed by the appellant questioning the select panel prepared by respondent No. 4 for engagement of ReT in NPS Randgali, Zone Ramban, District Ramban in which names of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were shown at S.Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. No reply was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 i.e. official respondents to the writ petition and only the non-official respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had filed reply. 3. The writ petition was filed on the ground that respondent No. 3 had issued an advertisement notice dated 22.12.2011 i.e. Annexure A for engagement of ReT under Sarv Siksha Abhiyan in District Ramban for various schools which inter alia included two posts in NPS Randgali falling in village Halla B, Tehsil and District Ramban and as per the advertisement, applications were invited from permanent residents of J&K State for engagement of ReT under Sarv Siksha Abhiyan at village level for rural area and in case of Urban area at ward level for the newly opened primary school under SSA in District Ramban against the pending target of 2009-10. As per paragraph No. 5 of the advertisement, selection was to be made on the basis of strict merit at Revenue village basis. 4. Plea of the appellant is that he was actually and physically resident of village Halla and being eligible, applied for the aforementioned posts for being considered for engagement as ReT in NPS Randgali. However, a tentative panel was prepared by respondent No. 4 reflecting the names of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 at S. Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the said panel. The appellant objected to the said panel on the ground that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were not residents of revenue village Halla, as such, had no right of consideration. 5. Grievance of the appellant is that respondent No. 4 instead of considering his objections, prepared final select panel reflecting the names of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 at S.No. 1 and 2 in the said panel. 5 and 6 were not residents of revenue village Halla, as such, had no right of consideration. 5. Grievance of the appellant is that respondent No. 4 instead of considering his objections, prepared final select panel reflecting the names of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 at S.No. 1 and 2 in the said panel. The appellant challenged the final select panel prepared by respondent No.4 before the Writ Court on the ground that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had no right of consideration as they were not actually and physically residents of village Halla where the school was situated. The learned Writ Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were residents of village Halla. 6. The order of the learned Writ Court has been challenged on the ground that as a matter of fact, revenue village Dhandrath was trifurcated into three villages i.e. Dhandrath, Halla and Dukson vide Annexure A-4 i.e. notification issued by Tehsildar Ramban dated 10.04.2009. Reference has also been made to Annexure A-5 i.e. permanent resident certificate and Backward Class Certificate respectively dated 03.03.2009 and 16.02.2010 issued to respondent Nos. 5 and 6. A perusal of the permanent resident certificate reveals respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as residents of village Dhandrath and not village Halla where the school was situated. On the basis of the same, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that admittedly, the school was located in village Halla, whereas respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as per certificates and other documents relied upon by them were residents of village Dhandrath, therefore, their claim for engagement as ReT in NPS Randgali was liable to be quashed, but a finding contrary thereto had been recorded by the learned Writ Court on the basis of order No. 139-RD of 2007 dated 29.05.2007, Learned counsel contended that vide the aforementioned order, the Government notified Panch constituencies in various panchayats including Panchayat Dhandrath-A, Dhandrath-B, Dhandrath-C as the said order defined Panch constituencies and not revenue village. Learned counsel further submitted that the criteria for selection as ReT was that a person must be resident of revenue village where the vacancy was to be filled up and on perusal of the documents, it was clear that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were residents of village Dhandrath and not Halla, therefore, they had no right of consideration against the aforementioned posts. 5 and 6 were residents of village Dhandrath and not Halla, therefore, they had no right of consideration against the aforementioned posts. 7. That on the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 referred to undated certificates issued to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 by Sarpanch of Halqa Panchayat Dhandrath-C and Numberdar of village Dhar respectively certifying them to be permanent residents of Halla Dhandrath B. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of order No. 139-RD of 2007 dated 29.05.2007 reveals notification of Panch constituencies in various panchayats including panchayat Dhandrath-A, Dhandrath-B and Dhandrath-C, whereas Annexure A-4 i.e. Order dated 10.04.2009 reveals list of revenue villages as per which villages Dhandrath, Halla and Duksan were shown as separate villages against S. Nos. 41, 42 and 43 respectively. In addition thereto, certificates i.e. Annexures A-5 and A-6 dated 30.03.2009 and 16.2.2010 respectively issued by Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, Ramban reveal that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were residents of village Dhar A/P Dhandrath, District Ramban. Thus, there are conflicting versions of village to which respondent Nos. 5 and 6 belong. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the Deputy Commissioner, Ramban to enquire into the matter pertaining to the place of residence of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 at the relevant point of time after giving an opportunity to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to plead their case and submit documents, if any, in respect thereto. Appellant may also file his objections in respect thereto. The said enquiry to be conducted as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of submission of certified copy of this order to Dy. Commissioner Ramban. Based on the enquiry report, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to decide in accordance with law. Principles of natural justice to be followed at all stages to avoid plea of prejudice. 9. Appeal disposed of in the aforementioned terms. 10. No order as to costs.