Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 81 (JK)

Sushma Jamwal v. State of J&K

2024-02-29

SINDHU SHARMA

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the selection/engagement of respondent No. 5 as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher in Primary School Dhanpur of Revenue Village Gurah Manhasan, Tehsil Akhnoor District Jammu. 2. Chief Education Officer, Jammu issued an Advertisement Notice No. CEOJ/SSA/2973-75 dated 29.04.2011, for engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers under SSA in Primary School on account of vacancy on account of Primary School elevated out of EGS under SSA. In Zone Jourian, one post each was advertised in Primary School, Dhanpur, Primary School, Kothey Chiban & Primary School Marira in revenue village Gurah Manhasan. The respondent No. 4 after receipt of the application forms of all the candidates prepared the panel/list of candidates to be engaged as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers in the aforesaid village. The petitioner had applied for one of the posts of RET in revenue village Gurah Manhasan and the merit panel was framed and the petitioner was placed Serial No. 4 in the panel, however, respondent No. 5 was placed at serial No. 2. 3. The panel was displayed and the objections were invited from the general public regarding the tentative panel prepared by the official respondents. The contention of the petitioner is that she submitted her objections with regard to the candidature of respondent No. 5 figuring at serial No. 2 of the said panel on the ground that she was married outside the village and after her marriage, she shifted to village Kote-Bhalwal, Tehsil Bhalwal District Jammu. The respondent no. 5 is residing permanently with her in-laws and, as such, was not eligible for engagement against the post of RET advertised for Revenue Village Gurah, Manhasan, Tehsil Akhnoor. 4. It is submitted that after receipt of the objections from the petitioner, respondent No. 2 directed respondent No. 3 to enquire into the objections and after conducting enquiry, the matter was referred to respondent No. 4 for investigation. A detailed report was submitted by respondent No. 4, however, without considering the same, respondent No. 5 was engaged as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher for Primary School, Dhanpur of Revenue Village Gurah, Manhasan, Tehsil Akhnoor. 5. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the selection/engagement of respondent No. 5 on the ground that she has been engaged in violation of Government Order No. 394-Edu of 2006 dated 28.07.2006 and was not eligible to be engaged as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher for Primary School Dhanpur. 5. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the selection/engagement of respondent No. 5 on the ground that she has been engaged in violation of Government Order No. 394-Edu of 2006 dated 28.07.2006 and was not eligible to be engaged as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher for Primary School Dhanpur. The petitioner submits that respondent No. 5 has shifted from village Gurah Manhasan, Tehsil Akhnoor to village Kote-Bhalwal, Tehsil Bhalwal after her marriage on 28.11.2011 and is permanently residing there and as such, is ineligible to be engaged/selected as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher in village Gurah Manhasan, Tehsil Akhnoor . 6. The respondent No. 4 after conducting detailed enquiry recommended the selection/engagement of the next meritorious candidate i.e., the petitioner, however, respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have ignored the said recommendation and entitlement of the petitioner for the engagement of the aforesaid post. 7. In her objections, respondent No. 5 has submitted that though the petitioner had also participated in the selection process for the post of RET but she possessing qualification B.A/B.Ed. having superior merit i.e., 51.45% than the petitioner, who secured 45.51% in B.A/B.Ed., was recommended to be engaged as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher for village Dhanpur, Tehsil Akhnoor. The panel was duly prepared by the Village Education Committee and recommended by the Zonal Education Officer, Jourian, wherein three candidates including the petitioner were tentatively selected for the post but the petitioner being lesser in merit could not be recommended against any of the post. 8. The objections filed by the petitioner against the tentative panel were duly considered and verification was initiated. After the completion of the verification, it was found that though the answering respondent No. 5 was married but she had never shifted her place of residence from village Gurah Manhasan, Tehsil Akhnoor to her matrimonial house till date and is permanently and actually residing at Gurah Manhasan, Tehsil Akhnor. After the completion of the verification, it was found that though the answering respondent No. 5 was married but she had never shifted her place of residence from village Gurah Manhasan, Tehsil Akhnoor to her matrimonial house till date and is permanently and actually residing at Gurah Manhasan, Tehsil Akhnor. This fact was duly verified by the Tehsildar Akhnoor vide his report dated 06.10.2012 and not only this, even the Chowkidaran/Chulla of the husband of answering respondent namely Susheel Jamwal was also of village Gurah Manhasan, as such, after verification and scrutiny of documents, it was proved that the physical and actual residence of respondent No. 5 is at Gurah Manhasan, Tehsil Akhnoor, therefore, the tentative select list was made final and the respondents issued an order of engagement of respondent No. 5 on 22.04.2013 pursuant to which, she joined her duties. The petitioner despite having the knowledge of the engagement of respondent No. 5 has filed this petition and the same is required to be dismissed. 9. The official respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in their objections have submitted that the merit panel for three posts of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers was prepared and displayed for seven days seeking objections, if any, from general public, however, no objection has been submitted to ZEO Jourian and subsequently, the said panel was submitted to the Chief Education Officer, Jammu vide respondent No.4’s communication dated 04.11.2011. When the panel was put before the Selection Committee i.e., Director School Education, Jammu and objections were again called from the candidates and the petitioner filed objection that the candidate figuring at serial No. 2 of the merit list i.e., respondent No. 5 had been married outside the revenue village, therefore, the petitioner was to be considered as she was next in merit. A detailed enquiry in this regard was conducted regarding the objection raised by the petitioner and it was reflected that respondent No. 5 was unmarried at the time of submission of her application form for the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher and she had been married to another village, however, as per the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Akhnoor and report of the Tehsildar, it transpired that respondent No. 5 is residing in the same village and in view of the residential proof submitted by the Tehsildar, respondent No. 5 was engaged as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher. 10. Mr. 10. Mr. Sudesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in case titled Sunita Rajput vs State & ors. reported as (2013) 2 JKJ 507 in which while considering the scheme of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers, the Hon’ble Division Bench had set aside the judgment stating that the judgment in Sunita Rajput view and the fact taken that a candidate though not actually residing in the village where the school having R-e-T position vacant is located would still be eligible for such position, in case she had roots in the village or some other connection with the village is untenable in view of the fact that it offends letter and spirit of Govt. Order No. 396-Edu of 2000 dated 28.04.2000 read with Govt. Order No. 394-Edu of 2006, dated 28.07.2006. 11. The entire claim of the petitioner is that respondent No. 5 is ineligible in view of the fact that she has married outside the village and is not permanently residing in the village where she has been engaged, therefore, her engagement is in contravention to Govt. Order No. 394-Edu of 2006, dated 28.07.2006, which reads as under:- “Government Order No. 394-Edu of 2006 Dated 28.07.2006” Whereas the Hon'ble High Court of J&K in its order dated 16.2.2006 passed on LPA(SW) No.215/2004 titled Ranjit Sharma Vs. State and Ors. while deliberating on the eligibility provisions contained in Government order No.396-Edu of 2000 dated 28.4.2000 desired the harmonization of terms “belong” and “local candidate” through a definition in a manner as would stop generation of any litigation on the subject; Whereas the matter has been examined in the context of the letter and spirit of the scheme of Rehbar-e-Taleem as envisaged in Government Order No.396-Edu of 2000 dated 28.4.2000 and contemporaneous records; Whereas the conceptual framework of the scheme makes it clear that the candidate to be considered for appointment as "Rehbar-e-Taleem” should be actually residing at the time of his/her appointment in the village in which the deficiency has been assessed and therefore, any view to the contrary would not be in conformity with the objectives and the concept of the scheme. Now therefore, it is ordered that the following Explanation shall add to clause (i) of the eligibility clause in the Government order No.396-Edu of 2000 dated 28.04.2000:- “Explanation: The word ‘belong’ and “local candidate” shall mean that the candidate to be appointed should be actually residing at the time of appointment in the village where the appointment is to be made” By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.” 12. This explanation was added keeping in view the fact to harmonize the term belongs and local candidate in terms of the government Order No. 396-Edu of 2000 dated 28.04.2000. Thus, the entire purport of the scheme is keeping in view the fact that the candidate, who is engaged, should actually be residing at the time of appointment in the village where the appointment is to be made. The only ground, on which respondent No. 5’s engagement could be questioned, would only be if at the time of her appointment or thereafter, she was not actually residing in the village where the appointment is to be made. 13. The official respondents after considering the objections of the petitioner have conducted an in-depth enquiry and had come to the conclusion that respondent No. 5 had applied for the post at the time when she was unmarried and even after marriage, she is actually residing in the same village. The Tehsildar Akhnoor has also given report to this extent. 14. The object of the ReT Scheme is that the candidate must be actually residing in the village where the school is established. This provides the right of consideration to the candidate, who is actually residing in the village. The petitioner fulfills the objection of the scheme as she belongs to and residing in the village and had applied the post, before her marriage and continues to actually reside in the village where the school is established. 15. This apart, respondent No. 5 has been engaged and is discharging her duty since 22.04.2013 and for the last 10 years, not only is working as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher but her services must have also been regularized against the said post. The petitioner, despite the knowledge of the same, has chosen not to question/assail her regularization as General Line Teacher. 15. This apart, respondent No. 5 has been engaged and is discharging her duty since 22.04.2013 and for the last 10 years, not only is working as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher but her services must have also been regularized against the said post. The petitioner, despite the knowledge of the same, has chosen not to question/assail her regularization as General Line Teacher. There is no complaint by any of the other respondents with regard to her service or the fact that she is not actually residing in the village. 16. Though respondent No. 5 has placed on record the proof and verification which has been duly done by the official respondents with regard to her residence in the same village but that apart, just only on the ground that she has married outside the village would not result in her not being a resident of the village. The only requirement as per the Govt. Order No. 394-Edu of 2006, dated 28.07.2006 is that she should be actually and physically residing in the village at the time of her appointment and this being duly proved by the authority. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected application(s), if any.