Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 980 (JK)

Mansoor Ahmed v. State

2017-11-03

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Kumar, J. 1. Vide Advertisement Notification No. CEO/K/12SSA/6957-60, dated 28.12.2012 issued by respondent No. 3, applications were invited for engagement of ReT under SSA against the target of 2011-12 in various schools of District Kishtwar including two posts of ReT in new Primary School lower Hunjala falling in revenue village Pochal-B. 2. Responding to the aforesaid advertisement notification, the petitioners along with eight others submitted their applications for consideration against the twin posts of ReT in UPS Hunjala. Accordingly, a merit panel was prepared by the ZEO concerned taking Habitation Hunjala as a village as explained in Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009, dated 08.04.2009. Thereafter, select panel was prepared considering only the eligible candidates belonging to habitation Hunjala. Accordingly, the petitioners were placed at S. No. 2 and 1 respectively. It is the grievance of the petitioners that instead of forwarding panel to the Director School Education for approval and issuing the formal orders of engagement in favour of the petitioners, respondent No. 3 vide his communication dated 30.04.2014 directed that the select panel to be redrawn at revenue village level in the light of certificate issued by the Tehsildar Kishtwar vide his No. 21/44 dated 08.01.2013. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 3 while directing that the select panel be redrawn at revenue village level also called upon respondent No. 4 to take up the matter with Assistant Commissioner (R) Kishtwar for clarification. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent, No. 4 took up the matter with Assistant Commissioner (R) Kishtwar but the Assistant Commissioner (R) Kishtwar instead of giving clarification endorsed the certificate of Tehsildar Kishtwar dated 08.01.2013 stating that the matter falls within the domain of Tehsildar concerned as such does not call for any clarification. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that since the habitation Hunjala qualifies to be a village in terms of Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009, dated 08.04.2009 as such, the panel was rightly drawn by respondent No. 4 by taking habitation Hunjala as a unit. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that since the habitation Hunjala qualifies to be a village in terms of Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009, dated 08.04.2009 as such, the panel was rightly drawn by respondent No. 4 by taking habitation Hunjala as a unit. He however, submits that even going by the certificate issued by the Tehsildar concerned dated 08.01.2013 even though habitation Hunjala is scattered over two revenue villages i.e. revenue village Pochal-B where the school in question is situated and Lachdeyaram, yet for the purposes of applicability of Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009, dated 08.04.2009, the same should be taken as one hamlet and the candidates belonging to the aforesaid hamlet alone should be considered irrespective of the fact whether the habitation falls in one village or it is scattered over two revenue villages. 4. The bone of contention in this writ petition is the ambiguity contained in Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009, dated 08.04.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that faced with the same situation, the department of Education while filing the objections in similar writ petition took a stand that the Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009, dated 08.04.2009 needed clarification on this aspect and that the matter had been taken up with the Competent Authority for clarification. He, however, submits that pending clarification, the consideration of this matter needs to be deferred. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and gone through record. 6. The facts in this case are not in dispute and the controversy can be resolved by giving a holistic interpretation to Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009, dated 08.04.2009. 7. Before we come to the terms of aforesaid Government Order, it would be appropriate to notice that the ReT scheme in J & K State was launched vide Government Order No. 396 of Edu 2000, dated 28.04.2000 with the following objects: i. Promoting the decentralized management of elementary education with the community participation and involvement. ii. To ensure accountability and responsiveness through a strong backup and supervision through the community. iii. To operationalize effectively the schooling system at the grass roots level. 8. As envisaged in the original scheme, village was taken to be as a unit for the purposes of making selection of local candidates as ReT to the schools to ensure community participation and involvement. iii. To operationalize effectively the schooling system at the grass roots level. 8. As envisaged in the original scheme, village was taken to be as a unit for the purposes of making selection of local candidates as ReT to the schools to ensure community participation and involvement. However, with the passage of time, the definition of village came to be clarified as a revenue village and then the explanation to Government Order No. 396 of 2000, dated 28.04.2000 came further explaining the term 'revenue village'. For facility of reference, Order 288-Edu of 2009, dated 08.04.2009 is reproduced hereunder: "The following explanation is added below eligibility condition No. I in Government Order No. 396 of Edu 2000, dated 28.04.2000 (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 kilometer away from other habitations and having a population of more than 3000 persons shall be entitled to seek engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem in a local school". The above explanation shall have prospective effect". 9. To the aforesaid order, addendum was also issued on 09.04.2009. For facility of reference, the same is also reproduced hereunder: "It is hereby ordered that the word 'only' shall and shall be deemed to have been added after comma and before the word shall appearing in the 8th of Explanation in Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009, dated 08.04.2009 issued under endorsement No. Edu-Misc/68/200, dated 08.04.2009". 10. That from the perusal of Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009 (supra) it is abundantly clear that the Government introduced an explanation to the already existing scheme of ReT promulgated vide Government Order No. 396 of Edu 2000, dated 28.04.2000 by providing that the term Village' used in Government Order No. 396 of Edu 2000, dated 28.04.2000 would mean a revenue village. However, where habitations in a revenue village are scattered, the candidates belonging to a habitation, popularly known as a village at least one kilometer away from other habitations and having a population of more than 300 persons shall be entitled to seek engagement as ReT in a local school. 11. However, where habitations in a revenue village are scattered, the candidates belonging to a habitation, popularly known as a village at least one kilometer away from other habitations and having a population of more than 300 persons shall be entitled to seek engagement as ReT in a local school. 11. From the perusal of aforesaid explanation, it is abundantly clear that apart from the revenue village which would generally be a unit of selection of ReT, habitation must be taken to be a village for the purpose of drawing the panel of local candidates as ReT provided it fulfills the following conditions: i. Where the revenue village has the scattered habitation; ii. The habitation where the school in question is situated is popularly known as a village; iii. The habitation where the school in question is situated is away from the nearest habitation by atleast a distance of one kilometer; and iv. The population of the habitation concerned is more than 300 persons. 12. From a careful perusal of explanation contained in Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009, dated 08.04.2009 when read in context of the objects sought to be achieved by the ReT scheme promulgated vide Government Order No. 396 of Edu 2000, dated 28.04.2000, it is abundantly clear that while considering that a particular habitation qualifies to be a village for the purposes of making selection of local candidates as ReT, the habitation must be a part of revenue village having scattered habitation where the school in question is situated. That being the position, the area or the houses of such habitation which are beyond the boundary of the revenue village concerned ought not to be taken into consideration. There is hardly any need to have clarification on the issue as is projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having held so, the facts of the case in hand be examined. Admittedly, and as is corroborated by the certificate of the Tehsildar concerned, the habitation Hunjala where the school in question is situated falls in village Pochal-B, however, a part of it is also scattered over the adjoining village. The Tehsildar concerned has, however, noted that this population of the habitation which falls within the boundary of revenue village Pochal-B is less than 300 persons, therefore, the provisions of Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009, dated 08.04.2009 are not attracted. The Tehsildar concerned has, however, noted that this population of the habitation which falls within the boundary of revenue village Pochal-B is less than 300 persons, therefore, the provisions of Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009, dated 08.04.2009 are not attracted. Respondent No. 3 has, therefore, correctly appreciated the provisions of Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009, dated 08.04.2009 and has rightly concluded that the habitation Hunjala which is within the revenue village Pochal-B does not qualify to be a village for the purposes of making selection of local candidates as ReT in terms of Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009, dated 08.04.2009 and has, therefore, rightly directed respondent No. 4 to redraw the panel by taking the revenue village Pochal-B as a unit. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in the instant writ petition, the same is dismissed.