Banita Sharma vs State And Others

Sanjeev Kumar, J

The petitioner is aggrieved of and has called in question the selection of respondent No.6 as ReT in Primary School, Gaige, Bajwal.

2 The short grievance projected by the petitioner is that she and respondent No.6 belong to same revenue village i.e revenue village, Bajwal and, therefore, eligible in terms of ReT Scheme and the Advertisement Notification to be engaged as ReT in the Primary School, Gaige which is situate in the revenue village Bajwal. It is submitted that since the petitioner is having higher merit than respondent No.6, as such, it was she who was alone entitled to be engaged as ReT in the Primary School concerned, but ignoring her better claim, the respondents selected and engaged respondent No.6.

3 With a view to appreciating the grounds of challenge urged by the petitioner in support of her petition and considering the stand of the official respondents as well as respondent No.6, it is necessary to notice few material facts.

4 The Chief Education Officer, Rajouri vide Advertisement Notification dated 23.10.2010 invited applications for supplying the vacancies of ReT available in different Primary Schools of District Rajouri. The Notification, inter alia, provided for filling up of two posts of ReT in the Primary School, Gaige, Bajwal. As per the said Advertisement Notification, the engagement of ReTs in the newly opened Schools under SSA Scheme for the year 2009-10 & 2010-11 was to be made at village level in the rural areas and at ward level in case of Town Area Committee/Notified Area Committee (TAC/NAC). Apart from the other eligibility conditions, the aforesaid Advertisement Notification specifically provided that a candidate, applying for the post, must be actually and physically residing in the village where the posts exist. This is specifically provided in clause (a) of para No.4 of the Advertisement Notification in question.

5 Indisputably, the petitioner and respondent No.6 belong to the revenue village Bhajwal. The Zonal Education Officer, Sunderwani, within whose jurisdiction the School in question falls, prepared a tentative merit panel for its display and the petitioner, in view of her merit, was placed at S.No.2, whereas respondent No.6 came to be placed at S.No.6. Despite the fact that petitioner was more meritorious than respondent No.6, the ZEO concerned recommended the engagement of respondent No.6 as ReT in the Primary School, Gaige. On the approval granted by the Director School Education, Jammu, the ZEO Sunderbani issued the order of engagement of respondent No.6. The father of the petitioner, who felt aggrieved by the ouster of the petitioner from the zone of selection, made a complaint to the Chief Education Officer, Rajouri, who took cognizance of the said complaint and appointed a Two Member Committee to enquire in the matter in detail. The said Committee consisting of Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Sunderbani and the Headmaster, High School Dhok Kangni, conducted the enquiry and submitted a report that the engagement of respondent No.6 by rejecting the candidature of more meritorious candidate i.e the petitioner was not genuine. The Committee found the process unfair, unjust and discriminatory. Accepting the report of the said Committee, The Director School Education, Jammu vide his order No.DSEJ/Legal/4335 dated 26.05.2014 cancelled the engagement of respondent No.6 ab initio and approved the engagement of petitioner on the post of ReT in Primary School, Gaige, which got vacated due to cancellation of engagement of respondent No.6. Consequent upon cancellation of engagement of respondent No.6, the petitioner was engaged as ReT in the School in question by the ZEO concerned vide his order No. PS/G/03 dated 31.05.2014.

6 RespondentNo.6, feeling aggrieved by the action of official respondents, in particular the cancellation of his engagement and appointment of the petitioner, filed SWP No. 1513/2014. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 03.10.2016. This Court found the order dated 26.05.2014, cancelling the engagement of respondent No.6 herein, had been passed without holding any enquiry and providing an opportunity of being heard and, therefore, the same was quashed. The Director School Education, Jammu was directed to go into the entire issue to find out, as to who, out of the panel, was eligible for engagement as ReT. To comply with the judgment passed by this Court in SWP No.1513/2014, the Director School Education, Jammu appointed the then Joint Director, School Education as Enquiry Officer to conduct a detailed enquiry. The enquiry was conducted by the Joint Director, who, on the basis of his enquiry, concluded that the village Bhajwal was consisting of three Panchayats, i.e Upper Bhajwal-A, Upper Bhajwal-B and Lower Bhajwal and that the School in question was located in Panchayat Upper Bhajwal-A. The Enquiry Officer further found that the petitioner herein belonged to Upper Bhajwal-B and, therefore, was not eligible for engagement as ReT in Primary School, Gaige which fell in Upper Bhajwal-A. The Enquiry Officer, therefore, found the engagement of respondent No.6, who belonged to Upper Bhajwal-A, as genuine. It is at this stage the petitioner approached this Court by way of instant writ petition seeking reliefs prayed for in it.

7 On being put on notice, the official respondents as well as respondent No.6 have contested the writ petition. While, neither the official respondents, nor the private respondent dispute that the merit of the petitioner is higher than the merit of respondent No.6, it is, however, contended that since the School in question is situate in Panchayat Halqa Upper Bhajwal-A, therefore, only the candidates belonging to and residing within Panchayat Halqa Upper Bhajwal-A are eligible to be considered for engagement as ReT in the School in question. It is submitted that, though the merit of the petitioner is higher than that of respondent No.6,yet, she could not be engaged as ReT in the School in question on the ground that she was not eligible being a resident of Upper Bhajwal-B. Relying upon the order of Director Rural Development Jammu bearing No.140 RD of 2007 dated 29.05.2007, issued in the exercise of powers conferred in terms of Rule 4(1) of J&K Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, it is contended by the official respondents that the revenue village Bhajwal has been delimited and has been divided into three Panchayat Halqas i.e Upper Bhajwal-A, Upper Bhajwal-B and Lower Bhajwal. It is, thus, submitted that this reorganization/delimitation took place in the year 2007 and, therefore, it was applicable to the instant selection which was initiated in the year 2007. It is submitted that the Director School Education, Jammu correctly accepted the report of Joint Director, School Education and upheld the engagement of respondent No.6 in the Primary School, Gaige on the ground that the petitioner was the resident of Panchayat Halqa Upper Bhajwal- B and, therefore, ineligible The rejection of candidature of the petitioner was, thus, sought to be justified on the ground that she was not the resident of Panchayat Halqa in which the School in question was situate. The official respondents, however, did not deny that the petitioner was and is more meritorious than respondent No.6.

8 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, the only question that needs to be determined in this petition is, what is the unit of selection envisaged under ReT Scheme and the Advertisement notification in question issued for making selection of ReT in Primary School, Gaige.

9 Before the aforesaid question is determined, it is necessary to notice few admitted facts. The School in question i.e Primary School, Gaige is situate in revenue village Bhajwal and Panchayat Halqa Upper Bhajwal-A. The revenue village Bhajwal consists of three Panchayat Halqas i.e Upper Bhajwal-A, Upper Bhajwal-B and Lower Bhajwal. The merit of the petitioner is higher than respondent No.6 and if rejection of her candidature is held to be bad and she is held eligible to be considered for Primary School, Gaige, it is the petitioner who would get engaged in place of respondent No.6.

From a bare reading of Advertisement Notice in question, it is abundantly clear that the Chief Education Officer, Rajouri invited applications village wise and made it abundantly clear that the unit of selection would be village in ‘rural area’ and ‘ward’ in TAC/NAC. Clause 4(a) further provides that a candidate must be actually and physically residing in the village where the posts exist. This is the Advertisement Notification which was published in the newspaper to which the petitioner and respondent No.6 responded by submitting their applications. The name of Primary School, Gaige is shown at S.No.47. There is no indication or even an hint that selection would be made by restricting the consideration only to the candidates belonging to the concerned Panchayt Halqa where the school is situate. As a matter of fact, the concept of ‘Panchayat’ for making selection of ReT is foreign to the ReT Scheme which is followed in making selection to the posts of ReT under SSA Scheme as well. It is because of this reason, the ZEO concerned had drawn the initial panel considering all the eligible candidates, but on an erroneous and misconceived notion that the selection was to be made by restricting the consideration only to the candidates belonging to Panchayat Halqa concerned where the School is situate, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. The enquiry which was conducted by the Joint Director, School Education in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in SWP No. 1513/2014 was also totally misdirected. The enquiry should have been directed to find out as to whether the petitioner and respondent No.6 are the residents of village Bhajwal where the school in question is situate and not to find out the Panchayat in which they would respectively reside. However, in view of the admitted position that both the petitioner and respondent No.6 are the residents of revenue village Bhajwal, there was hardly any necessity to conduct any enquiry in the matter.

11 Be that as it may, the matter appears to have been proceeded on wrong premise from the very beginning and this has made the parties to litigate in the Court for nothing.

12 In view of the above, I find merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, allowed. The selection as also the engagement of respondent No.6 is held bad in the eye of law and same is, accordingly, quashed. The official respondents are directed to immediately and forthwith restore the order of engagement of the petitioner as ReT made pursuant to the approval granted by the Director School Education, Jammu vide his order dated 26.05.2014 (supra) with all consequential benefits.

Disposed of in the above terms.