Mobina Aziz vs State Of J&K And Ors

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition, seeking direction in the nature of mandamus for his engagement as RET in Government UPS, Govindpura,

Ramban.

It is stated that the Notification No. DIP/J -8125 dated 27.01.2010 was issued for filling up of two posts, one in Math stream and other in Science

steam in Govt. UPS, Govindpura, Ramban and that the petitioner had applied in the Science stream. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was the

only candidate in the Science stream and, therefore, his name figured in the select list, which forms (Annexure-A) to this writ petition. The select list

was, however, challenged in the writ petition titled “Madhu Sharma Versus State of J & K & Others†bearing SWP No. 1921/2010 and by virtue

of order dated 11.08.2011, the said list is stated to have been stayed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner-Madhu Sharma in the aforesaid writ petition had no claim against the post in Science

stream, as she had only applied in Math stream and, therefore, the order staying the select list as a whole was legally erroneous.

Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the petitioner herein was not a party in Madhu Sharma’s petitioner nor was any effort made by

him to get incorporated as party respondent or seek modification of the order passed by the Court on 11.08.2011. Instead, it is stated that the petitioner

responded to another advertisement for the post of RET for Govt. New Primary School, Parribassi and was selected and appointed thereto and

continues to work as such till date. The petitioner has also been regularized as a regular teacher upon completion of his five years tenure as RET, but

states that he has a right to be appointed as an RET in the selection process earlier conducted, in which he stood selected.

Learned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner does not have any right to seek appointment, as in the meantime, the RET scheme

itself has been closed in the year 2018, which is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The order dated 11.08.2011, whereby respondents were prevented from making the appointment was subsequently modified vide order dated

26.08.2014, leaving it free to the official respondents to make appointment as per the select panel for village Maitra. It appears that the life of the RET

panel is only six months and, therefore, if at all the petitioner had any right, the same stood exhausted by efflux of time assuming the date was to be

calculated from the passing of the order dated 26.08.2014. In the meantime, the RET scheme itself is stated to have been closed and since the

petitioner had not sought modification of the earlier order passed in the writ petition filed by Madhu Sharma nor made any effort to have the life of the

select panel kept alive, no such rights survived to be enforced as on date in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has already been selected

as RET for a different school and has since been regularized, therefore, there is little justification for the petitioner to claim appointment now as RET

in a different school.

For the aforementioned reasons, this petition is found to be without any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.