Abida Banoo vs State and others

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Judge

In pursuance to an exercise, which began with issuance of an advertisement notice for filling up two posts of Rehbar-e-Taleem in Primary

School Malikpora Kathipora, a panel was prepared and candidates figuring at serial number 1 and 2 were engaged and one Syed Shahnawaz

Lateef Bukhari-respondent No. 5 was figuring in the waiting list. One of the selected candidates namely Saima Hussain remained unauthorizedly

absent and was accordingly disengaged and consequent whereof respondent No. 4 forwarded the panel/ recommendation for engagement of

respondent No. 5, who was later on appointed.

The grievance projected by the petitioner in this writ petition is that respondents 1 to 4 ought to have issued a fresh advertisement notice instead

of making operational the earlier panel-waiting list.

The assertion is resisted by the official as well as by private respondent.

In terms of Govt. Order No. 503-Edu of 2010 dated 10th June, 2010 read with Govt. Order No. 396-Edu of 2000 dated 28th January, 2000,

respondents had to prepare the panel 1= times for number of posts required and the panel remains operative for a period of six months from the

date it is given effect to.

It is apt to reproduce operative portion of the Govt. Order No. 503-Edu of 2010 dated 10th June, 2010 herein:

Whereas, the panel to be drawn up for selection of Rehbar-e-Taleem has to be 1 = times of the assessed requirement of Rehbar-e-Taleem as per

the provisions of the Government order No: 396-Edu of 2000 dated 28.1.2000;

Whereas, the Department is required to select only 2 ReT for a new primary school/ upgraded primary school out of the panel drafted as per

mandate of the scheme and as such it would be appropriate that the panel remains valid only for six months from the date of issuance of

engagement order in favour of selected candidate.

Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered that:

I The validity of panel to be drawn for the selection of ReT in any newly opened primary school/ up-graded primary school shall, henceforth, be six

months from the date of issuance of engagement order in favour of the selected candidates.

II The applications for the posts of ReT shall be received by the concerned ZEO within a period of ten days from the date of notification of such

posts.

III The list of candidates applying for the ReT posts, so advertised shall be drawn, as far as possible, within a period of one week and the

objections to the panel so framed, if any, shall be invited from all concerned with a week's time.

IV The list of candidates applying for the post of ReT in a particular school shall be framed separately by the concerned ZEO as per the guidelines

of the scheme, out of which a panel of candidates shall be drawn in order of merit, which shall be 1 = times the number of posts required to be

filled up. In case of an upgraded primary school the panel shall be separate for the candidates with Math and Science background which shall also

be 1 = times the number of posts required to be filled up in each case.

The case of the respondents is that they have prepared the panel in terms of the said Govt. Order and it has not been questioned in the writ

petition. The purpose of preparing the panel by 1 = times the number of posts required is in the interests of students and fresh process takes a

considerable time and resultantly students suffer.

Admittedly the petitioner has not questioned the above referred Govt. Orders. Now the question is whether the engagement of respondent No.

5 is valid?

The panel was prepared in the matter on 26th July, 2010, wherein, Saima Hussain and Bashir Ahmad Lone, were shown to be figuring at serial

number 1 and 2 and thus were selected. Respondent No. 5 is shown to be at serial number 3.

After her engagement on 15th October, 2010 along with said Bashir Ahmad Lone, Saima Hussain, on the ground of unauthorized absence, was

disengaged on 18th March, 2011.

The panel was made operational only thereafter and at that relevant point of time, only a period of five months had passed by, therefore, the

Govt. Order supra has not been violated but followed in letter and spirit.

In the given circumstances, the exercise made by the official respondents by appointing respondent No. 5 does not suffer from any illegality.

The writ petition, therefore, is without any merit and dismissed as such.