Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 592 (JK)

Altaf Hussain v. State of J&K

2018-08-02

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA

body2018
JUDGMENT : D. S. Thakur, J. 1. The present Letter Patents Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.10.2016, passed in SWP No. 2491/2010. 2. With a view to understand the present controversy in its correct perspective, it becomes necessary to give some material facts in brief. 3. An advertisement notice came to be issued on 18.04.2009 inviting inter alia eligible candidates for the post of ReTs for Upper Primary Schools. The eligibility qualification prescribed as per the advertisement notice was 10+2. A panel was thus prepared by the ZEO Mandi, wherein the names of the appellants figured at Sr. No. 1 & 2. Subsequently, it appears that a corrigendum dated 07.08.2009 was issued by the official respondents, wherein the eligibility qualification was prescribed as 10+2 with Math/Science stream. Based upon the corrigendum so issued, it appears that the ZEO Mandi prepared another panel, wherein the name of private respondent No. 5 figured. 4. Feeling aggrieved of the preparation of the second panel, the appellants herein filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 1459/2009 questioning inter alia the action of the official respondents to the extent that the corrigendum if at all would have only prospective application and would not be applicable to the advertisement issued prior to the said corrigendum. On the petition having been filed, the Writ Court vide order dated 19.08.2009 directed that “the position of the panel prepared on the basis of the original advertisement notice, wherein the names of the appellants herein figured be not disturbed, unless warranted in due course of law.” 5. It needs to be mentioned that vide order dated 27.08.2010, the aforesaid order was vacated on the failure of the appearance of learned counsel for the petitioners before the Court, when the matter was called for hearing. It also needs to be mentioned that the aforesaid writ petition came to be finally disposed of vide order dated 07.12.2012, without proper adjudication on the issue as to whether the selection would be governed by the corrigendum or not. 6. It appears that the petitioners/appellants herein had in the meantime, come to be appointed vide order dated 18.10.2010, that is much after the vacation of the interim order passed by the Court on 27.08.2010. 6. It appears that the petitioners/appellants herein had in the meantime, come to be appointed vide order dated 18.10.2010, that is much after the vacation of the interim order passed by the Court on 27.08.2010. The appellants, who were the petitioners in the said petition appear to have lost interest in the petition filed by them, inasmuch as, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the corrigendum was not acted upon by the official respondents. 7. As a consequence of the appointments of the petitioners/ appellants herein, their appointments came to be challenged in writ petition bearing SWP No. 2491/2010 by the respondent No. 5 herein. Despite having been served twice, pre-admission and post-admission, the appellants herein chose not to appear before the Writ Court. Finally, by virtue of order impugned dated 14.10.2016, the writ petition was allowed and the appointments of private respondents/appellants herein was quashed on the ground that the selection made was contrary to the corrigendum dated 07.08.2009. Hence the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants while challenging the order impugned dated 14.10.2016, passed by the Writ Court urged that the Writ Court had lost sight of the fact that the corrigendum was to have the only prospective application and the advertisement notice was to be governed by the criteria as it existed on the date of issuance of the said advertisement notice. It was further urged that the official respondents infact had not acted upon the corrigendum and made selections and appointments on the basis of the criteria existing at the time of advertisement notice in the entire District Poonch. 9. Mr. Rahul Bharti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent No. 5, on the other hand, urged that the Ministry of Human Resource & Development (MHR&D) had issued guidelines on 01.04.2008, which had specifically prescribed that for upgraded Primary Schools, the eligibility qualification would be 10+2 with Math/Science streams. It was urged that even when the advertisement notice was issued on 18.04.2009, it was not in accordance with the guidelines prescribed with the MHR&D, which error was corrected vide corrigendum dated 07.08.2009 10. It was urged that even when the advertisement notice was issued on 18.04.2009, it was not in accordance with the guidelines prescribed with the MHR&D, which error was corrected vide corrigendum dated 07.08.2009 10. Mr Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the official respondents urged that a similar issue has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in LPASW No. 06/2015 in case titled “Zulfiqar Ahmed V/s State of J&K and others” decided on 25.04.2016, wherein it is held as under:- “The SSA Scheme provides that R-e-T positions should be filled up by the candidates with Science/mathematics background and was introduced with the clear object to develop knowledge of science and math amongst students at primary and post primary level. The expression “background” in the fact situation of the SSA Scheme, has to be read in conjunction with the educational qualification provided for seeking appointment to the post of teacher. A candidate who seeks appointment as teacher under SSA Scheme in the UPS has to, thus, necessarily have the academic qualification of 10+2 with science and math. The purpose underlying the SSA scheme can be achieved only by effectuating the same on ground level. The State Government and its authorities are duty bound to follow the mandate contained in the SSA Scheme. The revised SSA Scheme became operational w.e.f. 1st April, 2008 and any position of ReT that was available on the said date and became available by upgradation is to be filled up from the candidates with Mathematics/ Science background. The relevant date would be the date when the advertisement notice is issued and the selection process initiated and not the date when the position fell vacant or became available due to upgradation. The selection process, in the present case, was initiated on 18.04.2009. The available advertised positions of ReTs in the circumstances, are to be filled up, having regard to revised SSA Scheme of 2008. The appellant is not qualified. He has no right to insist that the guidelines framed prior to revised SSA Scheme of 2008 are required to be followed and posts be filled up from amongst the candidates not necessarily having mathematics/ science background.” 11. Having considered the matter, we feel that the view taken by the Division Bench in case (supra) applies squarely to the present case as well. Having considered the matter, we feel that the view taken by the Division Bench in case (supra) applies squarely to the present case as well. As per SSA guidelines, it was necessary for a candidate to pass 10+2 in the stream of Science and Maths. While the advertisement issued was not in consonance with the requirement, but the mistake was rectified by issuance of the corrigendum. Be that as it may, we find no merit in the present appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected IA.