JUDGMENT : B.S. Walia, J. 1. Petitioner was engaged as Rehbar-e-Taleem (hereinafter referred to as 'R-e-T') in Government Primary School, Bhagtha vide order Annexure-A, dated 05.11.2003. As per averments in paragraph No. 6 of the writ petition, the petitioner on account of being unwell at the time of engagement, was under constant treatment of doctors, and was able to discharge duty only on the strength of medical treatment. However, in the year 2006, his medical condition deteriorated requiring him to avail leave. Consequently, he submitted an application for leave to the in-charge Government Primary School, Bhagtha, Zone, Tikri. That in response to the application for leave submitted by the petitioner through the 1st Teacher Govt. GPS Bhagtha, the Zonal Education Officer, Tikri (Udhampur) vide Annexure-B wrote back to the 1st Teacher Govt. GPS Bhagtha to inform the petitioner that he was not entitled to leave. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was informed vide Annexure-C, dated 16.11.2006 by the Headmaster, Government Primary School, Bhagtha that he was not entitled to leave. 2. That the petitioner claims to have been constantly requesting the authorities for grant of medical leave but without success. Subsequently, vide Annexure-D, dated 18.12.2006 Respondent No. 6, informed the petitioner with copy to Chief Education Officer, Udhampur as well as in-charge GPS Bhagtha of sanction of one month's leave i.e. from 28.09.2006 to 27.10.2006 but of the communication having come to his notice only later. It is also the stand of the petitioner that due to his medical incapacity as evident from medical record, Annexure-E, he was not in a position to do duty. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that his services were terminated by Respondent No. 6 vide order dated 19.01.2007 without holding an enquiry, giving show cause or for that matter even supplying copy of order of termination. It is claimed that the order of termination came to his notice only when he went to the office of Respondent No. 6 to enquire about his service. 4. It is claimed that the order of termination came to his notice only when he went to the office of Respondent No. 6 to enquire about his service. 4. That in Paragraph No. 13 of the writ petition, the petitioner has tried to explain delay of approximately 3 years in approaching this Court in challenging order of termination dated 19.01.2007 in the last week of November, 2009 by mentioning that he had been pursuing his case before Respondent No. 6 but no cogent information was provided to him about termination of his service and it was only couple of months back that he had been informed about the termination order Annexure-F which was published in the newspaper dated 16.02.2007. 5. The order of termination has been challenged inter alia on ground of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, besides of petitioner having a justifiable cause for not attending duty i.e. his being unwell. It is further averred that even otherwise, no R-e-T had been engaged in his place and the post falling vacant on his termination from service had not been filled up, that although he had been approaching the respondents for being allowed to join duty since January, 2007, he was not allowed to do so. 6. That in the aforementioned background, prayer is for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing order passed by Respondent No. 6 bearing No. ZEOT/SSA/5170-73, dated 19.01.2007 terminating the engagement of the petitioner as R-e-T as also for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as R-e-T in Government Primary School, Bhagtha, Tehsil and District Reasi as also to regularize his service on completion of five years of service. 7. That Govt. Order No. 396-Edu of 2000, dated 28.04.2000 deals with Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme. As per the scheme, an R-e-T is to be drawn from the local community to make up the deficiency of the staff at the elementary level of education with the underlying object to posit the roll of the teaching guide as catalyst for quality education and to ensure the overall development of the personality of children. The appointment of R-e-T is against monthly honorarium for a period of five years i.e. @ Rs. 1500/- per month for first two years to be increased to Rs. The appointment of R-e-T is against monthly honorarium for a period of five years i.e. @ Rs. 1500/- per month for first two years to be increased to Rs. 2000/- per month from 3rd year onwards with engagement to be initially for a period of two years to be extended for further three years subject to satisfactory performance as to enrolment drive, mitigation of dropout rates and performance level of the students to be evaluated and assessed by VLC and ZEO. 8. The scheme further provides that on satisfactory completion of five years as R-e-T on honorarium basis, R-e-T is eligible for appointment as General Line Teacher in the Education Department on the VLC certifying satisfactory performance of the teacher besides highlighting the specific achievements and overall conduct. At the time of consideration for formal appointment in the Government, if a teacher is not found to fulfill age qualification, then his/her employment would in future be on contractual basis. 9. That in the aforementioned background, learned AAG has relied on the Jammu and Kashmir Leave of Absence to Rehbar-e-Taleem Rules, 2007 to contend that reasonable opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner in terms of Rule 5 of aforesaid rules. Rule 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Leave of Absence to Rehbar-e-Taleem Rules, 2007 is reproduced hereunder:- '(5) Provisions of penalty for unauthorized absence an Rehbar-e-Taleem found to be absenting without authorization shall after being given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, be liable to following action:- (i) Termination of the engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem if he/she fails to resume his/her functions within a period of three months from the date of his/her unauthorized absence; (ii) Imposition of fine equivalent to the amount of honorarium payable to him/her for the period of absence; (iii) Break in the period of engagement which shall disentitle the consideration of the earlier spell of engagement for computation of his/her five years period of engagement.' 10. That it has also been contended that vide Letter No. ZEOT/SSA/4412, dated 08.11.2006, Letter No. ZEOT/SSA/4964, dated 18.12.2006 and Letter No. ZEOT/SSA/5076-80, dated 26.12.2006 petitioner was required to report to the office of ZEO Tikri Udhampur or to rejoin at his place of posting at GPS Bhagtha but the petitioner neither rejoined nor communicated his intention of doing so, therefore the, ZEO Tikri formed the opinion that the petitioner was not interested to continue in service, consequentially, cancelled his engagement as R-e-T. 11. Learned AAG contends that the concept of R-e-T was to provide for deficiency of staff at the elementary level of education to act as a catalyst for quality education so as to ensure the overall development of the personality of children and for providing guidance to the students community of rural areas, that as per the petitioner himself, he was not keeping good health even at the time of engagement and was performing duty solely on the basis of medical treatment, leave sought for was initially not approved but vide Annexure-D, dated 18.12.2006 was allowed for one month i.e. with effect from 28.09.2006 to 27.10.2006, on expiry of which petitioner was directed to report for duty within two days failing which he was informed that action would be taken as per rules against him which might include cancellation of engagement order, therefore, there was sufficient compliance with the principles of Natural Justice. 12. That no objection's or for that matter, counter has been filed despite lapse of sufficient period of time besides listing of the case a number of times and granting opportunity for filing objections. 12. That no objection's or for that matter, counter has been filed despite lapse of sufficient period of time besides listing of the case a number of times and granting opportunity for filing objections. However, learned AAG made the following submissions: (i) That Annexures B, C, D & F had been placed on record, therefore, obviously the same were to the knowledge of the petitioner and in the circumstances it was clear that the petitioner had tried to over reach the Court by posing ignorance qua the said orders; (ii) Although in paragraph No. 10 of the writ petition, it had been mentioned that Annexure-D i.e. Communication dated 18.12.2006 was not served on him and he came to know of the same later, yet details with regard to how he came to know about the same and on which date have not been mentioned in the writ petition; (iii) The plea that petitioner was not aware of orders requiring him to rejoin within two days and came to know of the same only recently was solely to overcome the bar of delay and laches in approaching this Court and the petitioner could not plead ignorance of his having remained absent from duty without leave; (iv) The medical record attached, only reflected Nasal Cold etc. only during the year 2007 and even if the medical treatment record from private doctor at Jammu was accepted to be factually correct, even then, it was apparent that the petitioner was not suffering from such a serious ailment so as to render him incapacitated to respond to the communications requiring him to report for duty or for that matter to inform the respondents of his medical condition. It was further contended that if the petitioner could go to Jammu for treatment he could very well have responded to the Notice Annexure-D, dated 18.12.2006 but choose to remain silent leading to passing of order of termination Annexure-F, dated 16.02.2007 and invoked the jurisdiction of this Court only by way of the instant writ petition on 27.11.2009 i.e. close to three years after absenting and consequential termination from service, therefore, the writ petition was highly belated and hit by delay and laches, thus liable to be dismissed on said ground alone. 13. 13. That the Jammu and Kashmir Leave of Absence to Rehbar-e-Taleem Rules, 2007 dated 27.06.2007 relied upon by learned AAG provides for termination of the engagement as R-e-T found to be absent without authorization after being given reasonable opportunity of being heard or in the alternative by imposition of other punishment which inter alia entails fine equivalent to the amount of honorarium payable to the R-e-T for the period of absence or break in the period of engagement which would disentitle consideration of the earlier spell of engagement for computation of five years of engagement. However, the aforementioned rules are not applicable on account of termination from service pertaining to a period prior to enforcement of the said rules and the rules earlier applicable being contained in Govt. Order No. 396-Edu of 2000, dated 28.04.2000 and also incorporated vide Govt. Order No. 537-Edu of 2004, dated 16.06.2004. Relevant extract of Govt. Order No. 537-Edu of 2004, dated 16.06.2004 is reproduced as under:- 'Govt. Order No. 396-Edu of 2000, dated 28.04.2004 after the para relating to "Payment of Honorarium" the following shall be added:- Entitlement of Leave A person engaged under the Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme shall be entitled to:- (i) 15 days casual leave in a calendar year with honorarium. (ii) 30 days leave without honorarium on account of accident, serious illness and Maternity in a calendar year. (iii) The leave so availed shall not constitute a break in continuous engagement as such This issues with the concurrence of Finance Department conveyed vide their U.O. No. A/9(77)-340, dated 31.05.2004.' That I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions made. Apparently, petitioner was refused leave vide Annexure's B & C while vide Annexure-D, dated 18.12.2006 petitioner was informed of his entitlement to maximum leave of one month as also of his being required to resume duty within two days failing which action entailing cancellation of engagement would be taken. The petitioner in Paragraph No. 10 of the writ petition has averred that Annexure-D as also order of termination came to his notice later on. The petitioner in Paragraph No. 10 of the writ petition has averred that Annexure-D as also order of termination came to his notice later on. The petitioners claim has to be viewed in the context whether it was open to the petitioner to abstain from duty as per his convenience, not respond to the communications requiring him to report for duty, maintain a stoic silence and after a number of years turn up and conveniently plead violation of principles of Natural Justice without explaining the delay in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. As per averments in paragraph No. 13 of the writ petition, the petitioner has mentioned that he was not aware that his services had been terminated, that he was pursuing his case before Respondent No. 6/ZEO Tikri and subsequently ZEO Reasi for being allowed to join duty since January 2007 but no information was provided to him about termination of service and it was only couple of months back that he was informed about passing of order of termination of service and was shown the paper cutting regarding termination order passed against him. Apparently, petitioner was aware of orders Annexure's B & C intimating that he was not entitled to leave as also Annexure-D which he alleges came to his notice later. The plea that he was not aware of order of termination dated 19.01.2007, that he had been going to the authorities for being allowed to join duty since the year 2007 but was not allowed to join duty and as per averments in Paragraph No. 12 of the writ petition, he came to know of termination order dated 19.01.2007 only after he went to the office of Zonal Education Officer, Tikri/Respondent No. 6 does not inspire confidence to explain the delay of close to 3 years in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. The order of termination was published in the newspaper on 16.02.2007 i.e. Annexure-F. Once that be so, the same would amount to due notice to the petitioner and he cannot plead ignorance of the order of termination. In the circumstances, the petitioner has failed to explain the delay of approximately 3 years in approaching the High Court in the last week of November, 2009, to challenge the order of termination dated 19.01.2007 as published in the newspaper (Annexure-F) on 16.02.2007. In the circumstances, the petitioner has failed to explain the delay of approximately 3 years in approaching the High Court in the last week of November, 2009, to challenge the order of termination dated 19.01.2007 as published in the newspaper (Annexure-F) on 16.02.2007. Consequentially, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is dismissed on account of delay and laches. No order as to costs.