Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 37 (JK)

Raj Kumar v. State

2018-02-01

RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Controversy involved in both the writ petitions is similar, therefore, both the writ petitions are disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Facts are taken from the writ petition (SWP No.58/2017). Reliefs sought for by the petitioners are as follows:- (i) Certiorari to quash report No.66/Teh/R/P/2016-17 dated 08.07.2016 submitted by the respondent Nos.4, 7 & 8 which it is held that the Government Order No.288 of 2009 is not applicable to habitation Jaranoo; (ii) Certiorari to quash Order No.DSEJ/R-e-T/5830 dated 09.08.2010 issued by the Director School Education, Jammu by which the private respondent Nos.9 & 10 Sunanda Raniand Sneh Rajput have given appointment and also to quash the panel prepared by the respondents by which the respondents have placed the private respondents Sunanda Rani and Sneh Rajput for selection and engagement for the post of RET in NPS Jaranoo and also to quash the final selection list (Panel) issued by the respondents so far it concern Sunanda Rani private respondent No.9; (iii) Mandamus to issue directions to the respondents to select and appoint the petitioners for the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher (RET) in NPS Jaranoo as the petitioners are fully eligible and entitled and fulfills the criteria for selection as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher (RET) in New Primary School (NPS) Jaranoo being the local candidates belonging to habitation Jaranoo; & (iv) Mandamus to declare the report No.66/Teh/R/P/2016-17 dated 08.07.2016 submitted by the respondent Nos.4, 7 and 8 by which it is held that the Government Order No.288 of 2009 is not applicable to habitation Jaranoo and Order No.DSEJ/R-e-T/5830 dated 09.08.2010 issued by the Director School Education, Jammu by which the private respondents No.9 and 10 Sunanda Rani and Sneh Rajput have given appointment and the panel prepared by the respondents by which the respondents have placed the private respondents Sunanda Rani and Sneh Rajput for selection and engagement for the post of RET in NPS Jaranoo and also the final selection list (Panel) issued by the respondents so far it concern Sunanda Rani private respondent No.9 as ultra virus, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjust and contrary to the provision of law and rules and against the provisions of principles of natural justices. 3. The case of the petitioners is that on 14.12.2009, Chief Education Officer, Reasi issued an advertisement notice No.DIP/J-6030 for selection to the posts of Rehbar-e-Taleem (for short, RET) Teachers for New Primary School Jaranoo. 3. The case of the petitioners is that on 14.12.2009, Chief Education Officer, Reasi issued an advertisement notice No.DIP/J-6030 for selection to the posts of Rehbar-e-Taleem (for short, RET) Teachers for New Primary School Jaranoo. Several persons including the petitioners applied to the said post and the private respondents also participated and based on rival merits and their ability, the private respondents were selected and appointed. 4. Challenging that, earlier writ petition bearing SWP No.1539/2010 was filed and an order was passed on 16.04.2016, as an interim measure, directing Deputy Commissioner, Reasi to determine the issue regarding the applicability of Government Order No.288-Edu of 2009 for selection and appointment to Primary School, Jaranoo. Pursuant to this order, Deputy Commissioner, Reasi passed an order dated 18.05.2016, appointing Tehsildar Reasi, Block Development Officer, Reasi and Zonal Education Officer, Reasi, the members of the commission, to determine the issue regarding the applicability of Government Order No.288-Edu of 2009 in relation to the advertisement notice. Consequent thereupon, on 08.07.2016 the following report has been submitted by the Committee to the Deputy Commissioner, Reasi, which reads as follows:- In compliance to Letter No.DC/Rsi/HQA/03-05 dated 18.05.2016 received from Worthy Deputy Commissioner, Reasi, the report is humbly submitted regarding the conditions of Govt. Order No.288 of 2009 with respect to Revenue “Village Bhaga.” (i) Revenue village “Bhaga” consists of 7-8 habitation in which Jaranoo is one of them and distance from habitation Jaranoo is less than 1 km from the boundary of the other habitation. (ii) Population of Jaranoo is more than 300. The Government Order No.288 of 2009 is not applicable in this case in totality with regard to the distance between two habitation is less than 1 km. 5. The above said report of three members’ committee dated 08.07.2016 is challenged in the present writ petition. 6. The earlier SWP No.1539/2010 came to be dismissed holding as follows:- It appears that, in compliance to the aforesaid order, a three member committee was constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Reasi who in its report dated 08.07.2016 has held the Government Order No.288-Edu of 2009 is not applicable, inasmuch as Revenue Village Bhaga consisted of eight habitations of which Jaranoo was one and distance from the habitation Jarnoo is less than 1 km from the boundary of the other habitation. In view of the report submitted, it is clear that there is no merit in the present petition, which is accordingly dismissed along with connected MPs Giving liberty to Sushma Devi and Raj Kumar to challenge the report of the Committee, if they so desire. This Court did not specify the forum where it could be challenged. 7. Mrs. Kour, learned senior counsel for the petitioners now challenges the report dated 08.07.2016 (Annexure-P) stating that it is non-speaking report, bereft of details and that the committee has not taken into consideration the relevant parameters, namely, report of the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B) Division Reasi dated 12.08.2016 (Annexure-R) and also Annexure-J, stated to be dated 12.06.2010. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners relies on this document to say that the distance from Bhaga to Jaranoo is 1.5 km and therefore, the committee report is bad. 8. At the outset, it has to be noticed that the committee’s report has been submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Reasi. Petitioners can move Deputy Commissioner stating that the report is bad for whatever reasons that the petitioners may specify. The subsequent document, namely, the report of the Executive Engineer dated 12.08.2016 passed one month after the committee’s report may be referred for verification. 9. If the petitioners are not happy with the Deputy Commissioner, Reasi’s response to their complaint/grievance, they can move the Divisional Commissioner disputing the factual findings of the committee or that of the Deputy Commissioner both in relation to distance and number of souls of the habitation. 10. The issues raised are factual in nature and disputed. This Court is not inclined to enter upon a fact finding enquiry. 11. The petitioners should have approached the Deputy Commissioner, Reasi or the Superior authority as indicated above, so that they can apprise the factual grievance effectively. The Court had already taken into consideration the report of the committee and dismissed the writ petition (SWP No.1539/2010) being devoid of merits. The only other option left to the petitioners is to agitate the report on merits before the Competent Authority who alone is entitled to consider the dispute on facts alleged by the petitioners. 12. The Court had already taken into consideration the report of the committee and dismissed the writ petition (SWP No.1539/2010) being devoid of merits. The only other option left to the petitioners is to agitate the report on merits before the Competent Authority who alone is entitled to consider the dispute on facts alleged by the petitioners. 12. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has raised a new issue in the writ petitions stating that two selected candidates namely Sunanda Rani and Sneh Rajput, respondent Nos.9 & 10, are the daughters of one of the Selecting authority- respondent No.13. This is also disputed. On this issue, the petitioners are entitled to make a complaint to the higher authorities for considering the grievance expressed by them. 13. In view of an effective alternate remedy, both the writ petitions are disposed of. Reliefs of certiorari are declined and liberty is given to the petitioners to agitate the claim before the authority as specific above, within time frame.