Poonam Rana vs State and Others

Nirmal Singh, J.—Director, School Education, Jammu, invited applications for two posts of Teacher under Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme

(hereinafter, for short, referred to as 'the Scheme') for village Laham. The petitioner and respondent-5 being eligible applied for the said post. The

Village Level Committee prepared a panel of the candidates for the engagement as Teacher under the Scheme. Respondent-4 on the verification

and recommendation of Village Level Committee prepared a merit panel of the candidates for their engagement as Teacher under the Scheme. In

the merit panel, the name of the petitioner figured at Serial No. 4, whereas respondent-5 figured at Serial No. 5. A copy of the merit panel has

been attached with the petition as Annexure-C. The candidates, who are at Serial Nos. 1 & 2, namely, Surinder Singh S/o Kashmir Singh, and

Chhabil Singh S/o Gittan Singh, were selected and appointed in the Primary School, Laham, and both joined their place of appointment on 19-01-

2004.

The Government accorded a sanction for opening of another Primary School in village Laham under Sarav Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme, with the

nomenclature Primary School, Laham SC Basti. Respondent-4 did not prepare a fresh panel for making the appointment in the newly opened

Primary School. Merit panel prepared by the ZEO on the recommendations of Village Level Committee was updated, wherein the qualification of

B.Ed, acquired subsequently by respondent-5 has been taken into consideration for her appointment in the newly opened Primary School, Laham

SC Basti.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the substantive prayer that she, being higher in merit in the panel, which was prepared by

the ZEO on the recommendations of Village Level Committee, has been ignored, wherein the ZEO has added the qualification of B.Ed, acquired

subsequently by respondent-5 against her name and engaged her under the Scheme in Primary School, Laham SC Basti.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The issue involved in this petition is whether the qualification acquired

by a candidate after the last date of the submission of the application, can be taken into consideration.

It is admitted case of the parties that ZEO, respondent-4, prepared a merit panel (Annexure-R1) on the recommendations of the Village Level

Committee. The ZEO prepared the merit panel on the basis of the qualification/merit. The petitioner secured 52.3% marks in B.A., whereas

respondent-5 secured 51.7% marks in B.A. Therefore, petitioner's name was placed at Serial No. 4 and respondent-5 was placed at Serial No.

It is also admitted case of the parties that the candidates, who were placed at Serial Nos. 1 and 2, were given the appointment in Primary

School, Laham. It is also admitted that another school was also opened in village Laham under the name Primary School, Laham SC Basti. For the

said school, fresh applications were not invited, but the panel, which was prepared for Primary School, Laham, was updated. While updating the

panel, the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 4 and respondent-5 was again shown at Serial No. 5. The merit panel has been prepared on 4th of

November, 2003. Respondent-5 acquired B.Ed, qualification on 14-12-2003, when her result was declared and she made a request for

entertainment of B.Ed. Marks Sheet in the panel on 16-01-2004. The request of respondent-5 has been placed on record as Annexure-R3. From

the request of respondent-5, it shows that this qualification has been taken into consideration after 16-01-2004.

At the hearing, it was pointed out to the learned Dy. Advocate General, to show from the Rules or from the Scheme whether the qualification

acquired subsequently can be taken into consideration, she was unable to reply. Even in the objections filed by the respondents, they have not

stated any where that the qualification acquired subsequently can be taken into consideration.

It is settled proposition of law that eligibility of a candidate is to be taken on the last date when the applications were invited. The subsequently

acquired qualification can be taken into consideration only if the Rules or Advertisement so permit. But there is no law that after the declaration of

the result, qualification acquired subsequently can be taken into consideration. If the subsequent qualification is to be taken into consideration, that

is to be taken of all the candidates and the Selecting Authority has to issue a corrigendum, informing all the candidates, to the effect that if they have

acquired higher qualification after the preparation of the panel, they can submit their testimonials.

As it has been said above that there is no Rule nor under the Scheme the qualification acquired subsequently can be taken into consideration

while updating the merit panel of the candidates for engagement as teacher under Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme for P.S. Laham S.C. Basti of village

Laham, Zone Khour.

A perusal of the updated Merit Panel shows that B.Ed, qualification acquired by respondent-5 subsequently has not been taken into

consideration when updated Panel has been prepared, but it has been subsequently inserted against the name of respondent-5. In case the B.Ed,

qualification acquired by respondent-5 had been taken into consideration at the time of preparation of updated panel, then the name of

respondent-5 should have been above the name of the petitioner because some marks must have been awarded for higher qualification, i.e., B.Ed.

The ZEO, while preparing the updated Merit Panel has not written the criteria as to how many marks have been awarded for the higher

qualification, i.e., B.Ed. From the record, it shows that the ZEO has fabricated the record without taking into confidence the Village Level

Committee. The ZEO of his own has no power to consider the qualification and prepare the Panel. It is the Village Level Committee, which

recommends the candidates for the preparation of the Merit Panel. The ZEO inserted B.Ed, qualification against the name of respondent-5 to

favour her, so that she may be engaged as a Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher. Why the ZEO has done so, it is only known to him.

The petitioner is higher in the Merit Panel. Therefore, she is entitled to be engaged as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher, not respondent-5. So the

respondent-5's engagement cannot sustain.

For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is accepted with costs of Rs. 20,000/-. The order of engagement of respondent-5 is

quashed. ZEO, Respondent-4, is directed to recommend the name of the petitioner for the engagement of Rahber-e-Taleem Teacher. The State is

to pay the costs to the petitioner. However, the State is at liberty to recover the costs from the ZEO after giving notice to him.