Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 36 (JK)

Anil Kumar v. State Th. Education Deptt

2020-02-03

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Vide advertisement notification No. 9 of 2010 issued by respondent No.3, applications were invited for engagement of RET Teachers in various zones of District Jammu which included two posts in Primary School Jhallar. Out of the two posts advertised one was earmarked for Mathematics stream and one for Science stream. Petitioner along with respondent No. 5 and other eligible candidates responded in the aforesaid notification and sought consideration against the post earmarked for Mathematics stream. A panel was prepared by respondents in which the respondent No. 5 was at serial No.1 whereas the petitioner at serial No. 2. On the basis of merit, respondent No. 5 was engaged as RET. 2. The engagement of respondent No. 5 as RET in Mathematics stream in the school aforesaid was assailed by the petitioner by way of instant writ petition primarily on the ground that Graduation degree relied upon by respondent No. 5 for seeking appointment as RET was fake. This Court vide order dated 14.12.2017, directed the Director School Education, Jammu to verify as to whether the degree possessed by respondent No. 5 was at all issued in her favour by the University concerned and whether respondent No. 5 had appeared as Maths student in the said course. In compliance to the aforesaid directions of this Court, the Director School Education took up the matter with the Vice Chancellor of Mahatama Gandhi Kashi Vidhyapith, Varanasi vide its letter dated 15.03.2019 and after verification it is found that the degree possessed by respondent No.5 was not issued by the said University. 3. Accordingly, the Chief Education Officer, Jammu was directed to put the respondent No. 5 on notice and issue termination order after providing opportunity of being heard. The process was followed and ultimately the services of respondent No. 5 were terminated. 4. In view of the aforesaid development, the only grievance of the petitioner that subsists is that, though the engagement of respondent No. 5 as RET has been cancelled, but respondents have not considered the petitioner who is next in order of merit for engagement as RET. From a perusal of record i.e. writ petition as also objections filed, it clearly transpires that the petitioner is next in the order of merit in the Mathematics stream but was not appointed in the face of better merit of respondent No. 5. 5. From a perusal of record i.e. writ petition as also objections filed, it clearly transpires that the petitioner is next in the order of merit in the Mathematics stream but was not appointed in the face of better merit of respondent No. 5. 5. Since, now the appointment/engagement of respondent No.5 has been found to have been obtained fraudulently and on the basis of false degree certificates, as a necessary corollary, respondents ought to consider the candidate next in the order of merit. 6. Taking into account the later development that has taken place in this case i.e. the termination of services of respondent No. 5, this petition can be disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the candidate next in the order of merit for engagement against the post of RET that has fallen vacant due to termination of the services of respondent No. 5. Let appropriate decision in this regard be taken and appropriate order of engagement issued in favour of candidate next in the order of merit i.e. the petitioner, subject to satisfying other eligibility conditions within a period of six weeks from the date certified copy of this order is made available to the respondents. The appointment shall be retrospective i.e. with effect from the date, the respondent No. 5 was appointed. The retrospective appointment shall only be on notional basis and shall not qualify for any financial benefits.