Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 800 (JK)

Anita Devi v. State

2017-09-05

TASHI RABSTAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of final list/panel prepared by the official respondents for making appointment to the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher in New Government Primary School, Tuti, Tehsil Gandoh, District Doda, to the extent it excludes the name of petitioner from the zone of consideration. Petitioner is also seeking a direction to the official respondents to make appointment to the said post in accordance with the panel/select list prepared under No.DIP/J-5878/09 dated 08.12.2009. 2. The facts-in-brief, as projected in the writ petition, are that pursuant to Advertisement Notice No.CEO/D/24496 dated 08.12.2009 for selection against the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher in New Government Primary School, Tuti, Bhalessa Education Zone, the petitioner came to be placed at Sr. No.1 in the select list/panel prepared under No. DIP/J-5878/09 dated 08.12.2009 issued by the Zonal Education Officer, Bhalessa (Gandoh). It is averred that thereafter the respondents without conducting any inquiry or affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, issued another select list solely on the report of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gandoh, whereby her name came to be excluded from the select list/panel on the ground that she does not fall in the habitation of Village Innharah. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Objections have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 herein averring therein that Tuti is an independent habitation having 424 souls in Revenue Village Innharah and is at a distance of more than 01 km from other habitation, i.e., Quarni, thus is squarely covered within the ambit of Govt. Order No. 288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009. Further, it is averred that Zonal Education Officer, Zone Bhallessa, Gandoh, respondent No.4 herein, framed the earlier panel in gross violation of norms, but, fact of the matter is that petitioner is a resident of another habitation and had wrongly been shown at Sr.No.1 in the earlier panel. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered the rival contentions and perused the writ record. 5. Although, in the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned panel, he has not questioned the inquiry report submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gandoh recommending the name of one Abdul Qadous for the post-in-question. 6. This Court vide order dated 25.10.2013 allowed said Abdul Qadous to intervene in the application for stay filed by the petitioner herein. 5. Although, in the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned panel, he has not questioned the inquiry report submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gandoh recommending the name of one Abdul Qadous for the post-in-question. 6. This Court vide order dated 25.10.2013 allowed said Abdul Qadous to intervene in the application for stay filed by the petitioner herein. Petitioner was also allowed to file the supplementary affidavit vide order dated 06.12.2013. However, petitioner had failed to file the same despite granting of last and final opportunity on 02.05.2017. 7. Mr. Koul, learned counsel for petitioner, however, argued that the inquiry report submitted by the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate was at the back of petitioner, as the petitioner was neither afforded any opportunity of being heard during such inquiry nor he was aware about such inquiry being conducted by the SDM concerned. He, thus, contended that the impugned panel is required to be quashed. 8. A perusal of the objections reveals that the impugned panel came to be issued only after the report of concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate. However, in the objections no where it has been stated that whether the petitioner had been afforded any opportunity of being heard either during the inquiry conducted by the SDM concerned or before the issuance of impugned panel. Therefore, in absence of such reply, it can safely be presumed that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of being heard before excluding her name from the impugned panel. 9. Since the official respondents have themselves admitted that the name of petitioner was at Sr.No.1 in the earlier panel for selection/appointment against the post in question, as such they were required to afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before excluding her name from the impugned panel. Since the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of being heard at any stage before excluding her name from the impugned panel, the same cannot stand in the eyes of law. 10. Thus, in view of above facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to allow the petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned panel, whereby the name of petitioner came to be excluded for her selection/appointment against the post-in-question, is quashed. 10. Thus, in view of above facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to allow the petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned panel, whereby the name of petitioner came to be excluded for her selection/appointment against the post-in-question, is quashed. Deputy Commissioner, Doda is directed to inquire into the matter afresh after affording proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the parties herein and submit inquiry report to the Chief Education Officer, Doda. Let this exercise be completed within period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order/judgment is made available by the petitioner to him. Thereafter, within a period of next two weeks, official respondents are directed to issue fresh final list/panel for the post-in-question. Needless to say, inclusion/exclusion of the name of petitioner in the final list/panel shall depend upon the outcome of such inquiry. Connected miscellaneous petitions, accordingly, stands disposed of.