Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 548 (JK)

Gul Nasreen Akhter v. State of J&K

2018-07-21

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner claims that she is a postgraduate in political science and has also done some diploma from the Government Industrial Training Institute, Rajouri. He has further claimed that pursuant to the resolution passed by the Sarpanch, Panchayat Halqa, Rajdhani and the Village Education Committee members, the name of the petitioner was proposed for selection as 3rd Education Volunteer (EV) in EGS Centre, Hattian, Village and Panchayat Halqa Rajdhani which was established on 22.11.2004 under SSA Scheme. Initially two persons, namely, Basharat Hussain and Abdul Haq were engaged as EVs whereas the petitioner was proposed for selection as 3rd EV in the aforesaid EGS Centre as the only eligible candidate available in the area. It is further stated that pursuant to the selection of the petitioner as EV, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed between the petitioner and the Chairman of the local community on 02.10.2005. The petitioner submits that after signing of the MOU, she approached the respondent No. 3 with her joining report but the same was not accepted. The petitioner claims that since then she had been making visits to the different offices but is of no avail. It is only in the year 2017, she filed this writ petition after having failed to evoke any response from the respondents. 2. The respondent No. 5 has filed objections in which a specific stand has been taken that there was no resolution passed by the Sarpanch or the members of the VEC, Panchayat Halqa, Rajdhani and the document placed on record by the petitioner is only a manufactured document and therefore, cannot be relied upon. It is submitted that the petitioner was never considered for selection and it was respondent No. 5 who was considered by the members of the VEC and local community and, accordingly, recommendations made by such Committee were approved by the competent authority. It is stated that since the year 2005, he has been working as EV in the aforesaid school to the knowledge of all including the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner raised no grievance against the respondent No. 5 for almost 12 years and, therefore, the writ petition which is hit by delay and laches cannot be entertained. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner raised no grievance against the respondent No. 5 for almost 12 years and, therefore, the writ petition which is hit by delay and laches cannot be entertained. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. It is true that engagement of respondent No. 5 as EV was made way back in the year 2005. It is also not in dispute that since 2005, the petitioner is working in the aforesaid school as EV and the petitioner who claims to be the resident of the same village cannot be heard to say that she was not aware about the engagement of respondent No. 5 till the year 2017 when the instant writ petition was filed. The writ petition is apparently hit by delay and laches, therefore, cannot be entertained. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also hit back at the respondent No. 5 by saying that his engagement made in the year 2005 was not in consonance with law inasmuch as on the date of his engagement, he was not even matriculate. To counter the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 referred to a communication of Under Secretary to the Government, School Education Department addressed to the Director School, Education, Kashmir/Jammu bearing No. Edu/NC/SE/411/08 dated 15.02.2012. On behalf of the respondent No. 5, it is contended that the respondent No. 5 at the time of his engagement was possessing the qualification of Adeeb which is equivalent to matriculation and subsequently in the year 2006 he also qualified matriculation examination. Relying upon the communication dated 15.02.2012 (supra), it is contended that even the Government has given time to the EVs with the qualification of Adeeb to qualify English subject additionally by or before August, 2013. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to this aspect also and find substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. It is true that at the time of engagement, the respondent No. 5 was only Adeeb and was required to qualify the English subject but in view of the subsequent communication of respondent No. 1 dated 15.04.2012, a mercy chance was provided to those who had not qualified the English subject additionally to qualify the same by or before August, 2013. In the case of respondent No. 5, he had already qualified the matriculation from State Board of School Education in the year 2006. That being so, the initial defect in the qualification, if any, had been cured. I am not impressed with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 was not possessing the requisite qualification to hold the post of EV. 6. For the aforesaid reasons and due to unexplained delay of more than 12 years, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of engagement of respondent No. 5 as EV in EGS Centre, Hatian. Therefore, the writ petition is found to be without any merit, hence dismissed.