Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 591 (JK)

Jeeva Bharti v. Mohan Singh

2016-11-11

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2014 passed by the writ court in two clubbed writ petitions bearing SWP Nos. 1627/2012 and 1640/2012 after obtaining leave of this court vide order dated 10.2.2015 inasmuch as the appellants were not parties to the aforementioned writ petitions. With a view to understand the background in the light of which the present controversy has arisen, it is necessary to give some material facts in brief: 2. An advertisement notice dated 02.11.2011 was issued by the Chief Education Officer, Udhampur, inviting applications from eligible candidates possessing 10+2 qualification for filling up of 31 regular vacancies of Teachers in socially and educationally backward areas identified under the J&K Reservation Rules on the pattern of Rehbar-e-Taleem scheme at village level in District Udhampur, the break-up of which was as under: (A) Science Stream 13 (B) Math Stream 14 (C) General 4 Total 31 3. According to clause 6 of the aforesaid advertisement notice, the Zonal Education Officer was required to frame separate panels for Science, Maths and General Line teachers and the candidates having Maths and Science background were to be considered from the panels so prepared. 4. It appears that the petitioners in writ petitions bearing SWP Nos. 1627/2012 and 1640/2012 responded to the advertisement notice dated 2.11.2011 whereafter a select list was prepared. However, by virtue of order dated 23.7.2012, the Chief Education Officer, Udhampur withdrew the advertisement notice dated 02.11.2011, which read as under: "In the interest of administration this office Advertisement Notice No. CEOU/E-2/20563 dated 01-11-2011 published in daily newspapers vide No. DIP/J-10863 dated 02-11-2011 is hereby withdrawn due to administrative problems." 5. Immediately thereafter, the official respondents issued a fresh advertisement notice dated 28.7.2012 wherein while the minimum basic qualification was prescribed as only 10+2, there was no condition prescribed, requiring the candidates to have the requisite qualification background in the subjects of Maths and Science. 6. Aggrieved of the withdrawal notification dated 23.7.2012 and the fresh advertisement notice dated 28.7.2012, the petitioners challenged the same in writ petitions bearing SWP Nos. 6. Aggrieved of the withdrawal notification dated 23.7.2012 and the fresh advertisement notice dated 28.7.2012, the petitioners challenged the same in writ petitions bearing SWP Nos. 1627/2012 & 1640/2012 before the writ court, which was allowed by virtue of judgment and order dated 15.12.2014, by holding that no reasons had been disclosed for withdrawal of the earlier advertisement notice dated 2.11.2011 pursuant to which the petitioners stood selected nor were any reasons recorded for issuing the fresh notification. The action of the official respondents was, thus, held to be arbitrary and consequently, the impugned notifications dated 23.7.2012 and 28.7.2012 were quashed. 7. The appellants herein, who were not parties to the writ proceedings, have questioned the judgment and order dated 15.12.2014 in the present appeal on the ground that the notification dated 23.7.2012, withdrawing the earlier advertisement notice dated 2.11.2011 had sound basis inasmuch as the department had erroneously prescribed the preparation of panels in the Math and Science streams from candidates possessing a background in the said subjects inasmuch as the said condition was to apply only if the post had to be filled up in the New Primary Schools or upgraded primary schools. 8. Reliance in this regard was placed upon Govt. Order bearing No. 1670-Edu of 2003 dated 24.11.2003 and letter dated 22.6.2009 issued by the Secretary to Government, Education Department. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 10. Admittedly, the appellants before us are not candidates with Science and Mathematics background but are possessed of 10+2 qualification in general subjects. They, however, neither applied pursuant to earlier notification dated 02.11.2011 nor challenged the action of the Govt. to the extent it prescribed the filling up of 13 posts in Science Stream, 14 posts in Math Stream and 4 posts in General (Total: 31 posts) from out of the candidates having background in the said streams. 11. Cause of action accrued to the petitioners in writ petitions bearing SWP Nos. 1627/2012 and 1640/2012 when having been selected, the Govt. decided to withdraw the advertisement notification by virtue of order dated 23.7.2012 and subsequently when it issued a fresh notification dated 28.7.2012. This was successfully challenged by the writ petitioners, leading to the quashment of two notifications by the writ court. The appellants stood as mute spectators and were fence-sitters all along. 12. decided to withdraw the advertisement notification by virtue of order dated 23.7.2012 and subsequently when it issued a fresh notification dated 28.7.2012. This was successfully challenged by the writ petitioners, leading to the quashment of two notifications by the writ court. The appellants stood as mute spectators and were fence-sitters all along. 12. It needs to be noticed that the State has not come up in appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2014 passed by the writ court and remains satisfied with the same. The appellants, however, have based their entire claim on the notification dated 28.7.2012 while at the same time tried to justify as to how the earlier notification dated 2.11.2011 was erroneous and contrary to the scheme. 13. In our view, however, the appellants cannot be said to be parties aggrieved inasmuch as the genesis of the entire controversy lay not in the issuance of the notification dated 28.7.2012 but earlier in point of time when the notification dated 2.11.2011 was issued. Rights of the parties had to be considered qua the notification dated 2.11.2011 and not in isolation thereof. Since the appellants did not respond at all to the earlier notification dated 2.11.2011 nor did they initiate any legal action to question the same, they cannot be said to be persons aggrieved only on the basis of the fact that the notification dated 28.7.2012 has been quashed by the writ court. Be that as it may, the present Letters Patent Appeal is found to be without merit and is accordingly dismissed along with connected applications.