Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 784 (JK)

Gurdeep Singh v. State of J&K

2018-10-05

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner in this petition is aggrieved of an endorsement made by the Chief Education Officer, Samba, respondent No. 3 on the representation of Panchayat, Raika Labana bearing No. CEOS/SSA/177 dated 01.06.2011, whereby Zonal Education Officer, Ramgarh, respondent No. 4 has been directed to consider the request of the Panchayat. The petitioner has also sought a direction to the respondents to finalize the selection process initiated in terms of Advertisement Notification dated 27.04.2011 and engage the petitioner as Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) in New Primary School, Raika Jougian, Zone Ramgarh on the basis of his merit and placement in the tentative panel. 2. Briefly stated, the facts, as gatherable from the writ petition, are that respondent No. 3 vide Notification No. CEOS/DRG’s/SSA/11-12/87-87 dated 27.04.2011 invited applications inter alia for filling up of two vacancies of ReT in New Primary School, Raika Jougian, Zone, Ramgarh under Sarav Sikhsha Abhiyan(SSA) (2009-10). The Primary School, Raika Jougian was sanctioned by respondent No. 3 vide his order No. CEOS/DCGS/SSA/11-12/74-76 dated 27.04.2011, on the basis of feasibility report submitted by the respondent No. 4. It is stated that at the time of according sanction to the opening of New Primary School at Raika Jougian, respondent No. 3 also issued a direction to the respondent No. 4 to provide temporary teacher for the functioning of the said school till the permanent arrangement was made. 3. Be that as it is, the petitioner possessing the qualification of B.Sc. B.Ed. and otherwise fulfilling the eligibility for the engagement in terms of the Advertisement Notification, submitted the application form to be engaged as ReT in the newly opened Primary School, Raika Jougian. Apart from the petitioner, in as many as, eleven other candidates also applied. The respondent No. 4 prepared a merit panel of all the 12 candidates who had applied and were found eligible. On the basis of inter se merit, tentative panel of the candidates to be engaged as ReTs was prepared by respondent No. 4 vide his No. ZEOR/380 dated 28.05.2011. On the basis of his qualification and merit, the petitioner was placed at serial No. 2, whereas one Sukhbinder Kour with the qualification of MA B.Ed. was placed at serial No. 1. On the basis of his qualification and merit, the petitioner was placed at serial No. 2, whereas one Sukhbinder Kour with the qualification of MA B.Ed. was placed at serial No. 1. It is also claimed that since Raika Jougian did not qualify to be a habitation in terms of Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009, as such, the merit panel was prepared on the basis of revenue village. It appears and is also contended by the petitioner that the inhabitants of Raika Jougian when found that there was no candidate belonging to habitation, Raika Jougian in the select panel, approached the Sarpanch and other Panches of Panchayat Halqa, Raika Labana with the request to keep opening of New Primary School, Raika Jougian, pending till their habitation was granted the status of revenue village. On the request of inhabitants of Raika Jougian, the Sarpanch requested the authorities of Education Department, particularly, respondent No. 3 not to operationlise the New Primary School, Raika Jougian till the aforesaid habitation was granted the status of a revenue village. It is this request of the Panchayat, which has been endorsed by the respondent No. 3 by its impugned communication/endorsement and the further process of selection of ReTs initiated vide Advertisement Notification dated 27.04.2011 (supra) has been kept in abeyance. The petitioner, who along with one Sukhwinder Kour is in the select panel, is aggrieved of the impugned endorsement by respondent No. 3, whereby he has directed to put the selection process on hold. This is why the petitioner is before this Court by way of this writ petition. 4. The respondents have filed their response, which is supported by the affidavit of respondent No. 3. In the reply, it is submitted that it is true that pursuant to the selection process initiated vide Advertisement Notification dated 27.04.2011, a tentative select panel was prepared but, as reported by respondent No. 4, Village Level Committee refused to sign the same. The Village Education Committee, it is stated, requested the respondents to close the school till the habitation Raika Jougian is separated from village Raika Labana and is declared by the Revenue Department as independent revenue village. It is, thus, stated that in view of the circular/instructions issued by the Administrative Department, the panel, in the absence of due recommendation from the concerned Village Education Committee, could not be finalized. It is, thus, stated that in view of the circular/instructions issued by the Administrative Department, the panel, in the absence of due recommendation from the concerned Village Education Committee, could not be finalized. The respondents have further stated that on the request of village Panchayat and on the intervention made by the local MLA and the then Hon’ble Minister of Industry and Commerce, a decision was taken to withdraw the opening of New Primary School at Raika Jougian and accordingly, a corrigendum in this regard was published in the Daily Newspaper, ‘State Times’ in its edition dated 18.06.2011. This is the pith and substance of the stand taken by the State respondents. 5. In view of the stand taken by the respondents that they have withdrawn the opening of the School vide corrigendum dated 14.06.2011 (supra), the petitioner, with the permission of the Court, amended the writ petition and assailed the corrigendum issued by the respondent No. 3 on 14.06.2011 as well. The respondents, however, have chosen not to file any reply to the amended writ petition and their right to file reply was closed by this Court vide order dated 31.08.2018. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Indisputably, the sanction was accorded by respondent No. 3 for the opening of New Primary School at Raika Jougian of revenue village Raika Labana pursuant to feasibility report submitted by respondent No. 4. The school was, however, made operationlised by appointment of temporary teacher(s) and the process of selection for two ReTs to be appointed in the said school was simultaneously initiated vide Advertisement Notification dated 27.04.2011. The inhabitants of Raika Jougian have not challenged the opening of the school in their habitation and, rightly so, for, why should the inhabitants of Raika Jogian oppose the opening of the school in their area. Therefore, no fault can be found with the decision of respondent No. 3 to open up New Primary School at Raika Jogian. There also cannot be any dispute that once the school is opened, it needs to be operationlized by providing the teachers under SSA norms. Whenever a New Primary School is opened, it has to be provided with two ReT teachers as per SSA norms. It is in consonance with the SSA norms, the respondent No. 3 without any waste of time issued Advertisement Notification dated 27.04.2011 (supra). Whenever a New Primary School is opened, it has to be provided with two ReT teachers as per SSA norms. It is in consonance with the SSA norms, the respondent No. 3 without any waste of time issued Advertisement Notification dated 27.04.2011 (supra). The selection was envisaged to be made at village level and therefore, all eligible candidates belonging to revenue village Raika Labana, who were found eligible, were considered. Merit panel of all 12 candidates was prepared and on the basis of inter se merit the petitioner was placed at serial No. 2 of the tentative select panel prepared by respondent No. 4. It has also come on record that before select panel could be processed further, the inhabitants of village Raika Jougian through their Sarpanch approached the respondent No. 3 with the request that the opening of the school at Raika Jougian be kept on hold till the habitation Raika Jogian is conferred the status of ‘revenue village’ by the Revenue Department. The representation of inhabitants of Raika Jogian has apparently emanated from the fact that no candidate belonging to Raika Jougian had been able to make it to the select panel. Inhabitants wanted the local candidates to be engaged in the school which was specifically sanctioned for their habitation. On the popular demand, the MLA concerned as well as the then Minister of Industry and Commerce also intervened in the matter. The respondent No. 3 succumbing to the popular pressure, decided to withdraw the opening of the school at Raika Jougian and kept the selection process on hold. This is the raison d’etre for the issuance of corrigendum impugned in this writ petition. This exactly is the position obtaining from the official record produced by Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General. 8. In the reply affidavit by respondent No. 3, another plea has been pressed into service to deny the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that the Village Education Committee constituted for the purpose of recommending the candidates refused to sign the panel and as per circular instructions, the select panel which is not recommended by the Village Education Committee cannot be put through. 9. It is stated that the Village Education Committee constituted for the purpose of recommending the candidates refused to sign the panel and as per circular instructions, the select panel which is not recommended by the Village Education Committee cannot be put through. 9. The plea of the official respondents that issuance of corrigendum impugned was necessitated due to popular demand of the residents of the habitation, Raika Jougian that the school could not be opened till habitation Raika Jougian is declared as revenue village by the Revenue Department and the benefits of various schemes including the engagement of ReTs are conferred on the inhabitants, is totally misconceived and therefore, cannot be accepted in law. There is a procedure in-vogue providing for opening of New Primary School. Zonal Education Officer concerned undertakes an exercise to find out the feasibility of opening of new school. Such exercise involves taking into account many factors like the population of the area, particularly the school going population and the distance of the nearest available school etc. It is only after the Zonal Education Officer concerned furnishes the feasibility report, the decision is taken by the competent authority, i.e. Chief Education Officer concerned to open up the new school. This is so provided under the SSA norms. It is not the case of the respondents or anybody else that the sanction to open the school at Raika Jougian was accorded by respondent No. 3 without complying with the requisite formalities. 10. The inhabitants of the Raika Jogian too are not aggrieved of the opening of New Primary School in their area. Their grievance is that despite the fact that a new school is opened in the area, yet the locals of habitation of Raika Jougian have not got the chance to get the employment and engaged as ReT. It is nobody’s case that the habitation Raika Jougian qualifies to be the habitation as defined under Government order No. 288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009. Simply because the inhabitants of habitation Raika Jougian have not found place in the select panel because of their inferior merit vis-a-vis other inhabitants of revenue village, Raika Labana, cannot be a reason or justification to keep the selection on hold and withdraw opening of the New Primary School at Raika Jougian. Simply because the inhabitants of habitation Raika Jougian have not found place in the select panel because of their inferior merit vis-a-vis other inhabitants of revenue village, Raika Labana, cannot be a reason or justification to keep the selection on hold and withdraw opening of the New Primary School at Raika Jougian. The MLA concerned or the Minister has no authority to direct the respondents to act contrary to the norms and pass orders which suit their constituencies. The corrigendum issued by respondent No. 3 is, therefore, found to be totally arbitrary and illegal and therefore, cannot be sustained. 11. This brings me to another plea taken by the respondents, which, on the face of it, is afterthought and has been pressed into service to somehow oppose the writ petition and justify the issuance of corrigendum. The plea taken, which has been taken note of hereinabove, is that the select panel, though prepared in accordance with the norms and on the basis of merit, was not signed by the Village Education Committee and therefore, could not have been processed further in view of the circular instructions issued by the Administrative Department. This plea of the respondents has been controverted by the petitioner by placing on record the panel duly signed and recommended by the Village Education Committee. In view of the contradictory stand of the petitioner and the respondents, I went through the record produced by the respondents. There is one panel issued by respondent No. 4 vide his No. ZEOR/380 dated 28.05.2011, where the respondent No. 4 has endorsed that the Committee Members of the school have refused to sign the panel. This appears to have been forwarded to the respondent No. 3 by respondent No. 4 vide his communication dated 07.06.2011. There is another copy of the same panel issued under the same endorsement number and date which is signed by the Committee Members. I also find that pursuant to the direction issued by respondent No. 3 vide his No. CEOS/DRGS/SSA/11-12/74-76 dated 27.04.2011 and the order of respondent No. 4 dated 06.05.2011, the Incharge Government Middle School Raika (Zone Ramgarh) constituted the Village Education Committee of seven members. The Committee claims to have been constituted in the meeting held on 13.05.2011 though the resolution lying in the record does not bear any number or date. The Committee claims to have been constituted in the meeting held on 13.05.2011 though the resolution lying in the record does not bear any number or date. With a view to find out as to whether this was the Committee which was constituted by the Incharge Government Middle School Raika on 13.05.2011, which also recommended the application forms of candidates submitted pursuant to the Advertisement Notification in question, I went through the application forms submitted by the candidates and found that all the candidates had been recommended by a different Committee. These application forms were duly accepted by the respondents. 12. In light of the aforesaid facts, it needs to be seen as to how the application forms were recommended by the Village Education Committee which, as per the respondents, was constituted on 13.05.2011 only i.e. much after the acceptance of forms by respondent No. 4. The perusal of record, thus, makes things fishy and murky. It appears that process of selection was put in motion and the application forms were accepted on the basis of the then existing Village Education Committee. That Village Education Committee has even recommended the panel of selection but there appears to have been constituted another Committee which consists the members from habitation Raika Jougian only. Since the Committee so constituted opposed the candidature of the candidates belonging to other habitations of revenue village, Raika Labana and therefore, they refused to sign the panel. In short, after perusal of the record, I am of the view that official respondents succumbed to the popular demand which was backed by the local MLA and the then Minister of Industry and Commerce. The decision taken to withdraw the opening of the school and keep on hold the selection was politically motivated and not in accordance with law. 13. For the foregoing reasons, I find merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned corrigendum issued by respondent No. 3 is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to take the selection process initiated vide Advertisement Notification dated 27.04.2011 to its logical end. Refusal by the Village Education Committee to sign the panel which is, otherwise, in accordance with SSA norms and Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme shall not come in the way of respondent No. 4 to proceed further and recommend the same to Higher Authorities. Refusal by the Village Education Committee to sign the panel which is, otherwise, in accordance with SSA norms and Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme shall not come in the way of respondent No. 4 to proceed further and recommend the same to Higher Authorities. An action which is in consonance with law cannot be left to the mercy of Village Education Committee which is motivated by the considerations not countenanced by law. Needless to say, that, if the petitioner is ultimately found to be eligible and entitled to selection as ReT on the basis of his merit, a formal order of engagement in his favour be issued. Respondents would culminate the whole process and issue formal letter of engagement in favour of the selected candidates within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this judgment is served upon the respondents. 14. Disposed of.