Madhu Bala @APPELLANT@Hash State And Ors

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

1 Respondent No.2 vide Advertisement Notification dated 19.01.2010 invited applications from the eligible candidates for filling up the two posts of ReT  in the Primary School, Lower Raja Chack. As per the said notification, one post was to be filled up from amongst the candidates possessing the minimum qualification of 10+2 with Mathematics and one with similar qualification with Science. The petitioner claims that he being 10+2 with Mathematics submitted his application form against the post meant for mathematics stream. The Zonal Education Officer, ChowkiChora considered all the eligible candidates, who had submitted their application forms and prepared a panel of selection in which respondent No.4 was shown as selected in the Science stream, whereas respondent No.5 was selected in the Mathematics stream. The panel was displayed for objections and thereafter recommended to the Director School Education, Jammu for approval. Upon approval, the engagement letters in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were issued.

2 The petitioner is aggrieved of the engagements of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as ReT teachers in the School in question and seeks to challenge the same on the following grounds:

i. That the aforesaid engagements have been erroneously made by  the official respondents on the basis of revenue village and that the habitation Lower Raja Chack  was qualified to be a village in terms of Government Order No. 288- Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009;.

ii. That both the candidates i.e respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were 10+2 in the Science stream and, therefore, could not have been engaged against both the aforesaid posts, particularly when one post was earmarked for Mathematics stream.

3 The respondents have filed their objections in which the stand taken is that the selection has been made by taking revenue village Raja Chack as a unit and not on the basis of the habitation for the reason that the Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.4.20019 is not applicable  in the given facts and circumstances of the case. It has further been stated that the selection of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has been made purely on the basis of the merit.

4 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that two posts of ReTteachers,  to be filled up in Primary School Lower Raja Chck, were to be supplied for engagement of one candidate each belonging to Mathematics and Science stream. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he being 10+2 with Mathematics was considered along with other eligible candidates for the post earmarked for the Mathematics stream. Respondent no.5 being more meritorious was, accordingly, selected. Similarly, respondent No.4 was 10+2 in the Science stream and, therefore, was selected on the basis of her merit. The petitioner, who admittedly does not possess the qualification of Science, was not entitled to be considered against the aforesaid post. The grievance of the petitioner as against respondent No.4 is, thus, not tenable. Similarly, respondent No.5 was 10+2 with Mathematics and was possessing higher merit than the petitioner and, therefore, was also rightly selected by the official respondents. The plea of the petitioner that since respondent No.5 had read Mathematics with Science subjects, he could not have been considered in the Mathematic Stream is also misconceived as there is no stipulation in the advertisement notification which debars a candidate possessing the qualification of 10+2 with Mathematics and the Science subjects from consideration in the Mathematics stream.

5 The other plea of the petitioner that the selection should have been made on the basis of habitation also cannot be entertained at this stage, more so when he had not objected to the panel when the same was displayed by the ZEO concerned or when the same was published in the newspaper before approval by the Director School Education, Jammu. The plea that the selection should have been made on the basis of habitation in terms of Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009 is an afterthought and cannot be entertained. That apart, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner, who was engaged as ReT way back in the year 2010 has now been regularized as General Line Teacher after successfully completion of five years and, therefore, this petition has, otherwise, become fait accompli.

6 For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed along with connected IA.