Rashmi Raina vs State

Syed Bashir-Ud-Din, J.—Under Rehbari Taleem Scheme, applications were invited for Rehbari Taleem Teacher post available in Lariyar

Primary School Tral. Both petitioner, as also respondent No. 5 applied. The committee under the scheme recommended petitioner for

appointment/adjustment against the post of Rehbari Taleem Teacher (RTT) in Lariyar Primary School. On this recommendation the Zonal

Education Officer was only to issue a formal appointment order. However, to petitioner's surprise, the respondent No. 5 is appointed,

notwithstanding superior claim and qualification of the petitioner. Petitioner's further case is that she has obtained higher marks in B.Sc. and B.Ed.

as compared to respondent No. 5 who too is B.Sc., B.Ed. with additional qualification C. P. Ed. Petitioner is residing in the vicinity of the School,

whereas respondent No. 5 is residing at a distance from the School. She prays for quashment of the appointment order of respondent No. 5 and in

his place seeks mandamus for her own appointment as R. T. T. in the school.

Respondent No. 5 as also the official respondents have filed objections/reply on affidavit. The availability of R.T.T. post under Rehbari Taleem

Scheme at Laripora Primary School is admitted. Inviting applications and filling of the post under the scheme is also admitted. However, it is stated

that the respondent No. 5 has been appointed on merit, better qualification and criteria of residence, as laid down under the scheme. No right of

the petitioner is violated. Respondent No. 5 has averred that besides beingB.Sc. and B.Ed. he is also C. P. Ed. while as petitioner is only B.Sc.

B.Ed. The appointment of respondent No. 5 is because of his additional qualification and merit. He and petitioner both belongs to Lariyar village.

His C.P.Ed. qualification and need for a teacher with such additional qualification, in the school has also weighed with the committee and

appointing authority, while taking a decision in his case for appointment as R. T. teacher in the school.

It is seen that the village Level Committee of village Lariyar, constituted under Government order has considered the matter and recommended

the case of respondent No. 5 against the R. T. teacher post available for Boys Primary School Lariyar Tral. This recommendation of the Village

Level Committee was further approved by another committee headed by Deputy Commissioner Pulwama on 5.3.2000. It is only in these

circumstances that respondent No. 5 has been engaged in terms of the scheme on 7.3.2002 only because petitioner obtained more marks in B.Sc.

B.Ed. compared to respondent No. 5 it cannot be said petitioner has superior merit than respondent No. 5 when the latter possessed the

additional C. P. Ed. qualification. There is not much difference in the marks of the two candidates in B.Sc. B.Ed., but the respondent No. 5's

additional qualification of C. P. Ed. cannot be left out from consideration. The selection committee has been aware of this position and still has

recommended respondent No. 5, after observing that he is most deserving, on sports and belongs to below poverty level family. On consideration

of comparative qualifications and merit if the prescribed committee and the authority/officer has taken the decision to select/engage the respondent

No. 5 the court in writ jurisdiction, is not justified to upset this recommendation of the engagement by the prescribed committee/officer. The judicial

review in such matters is confirmed to decisional process and not to the decision as such. The decisional process does not appear vitiated in the

facts and circumstances of the case.

In the above view, of the matter, the petition is dismissed at thresh hold.