Rayees Qadir Padder @APPELLANT@Hash State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Anr

In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, the petitioner has implored for the grant of following relief(s) in his favour:

i. "A. By issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to select the petitioner and consequently appoint him on the basis of his merit eligibility against the post of RET in PS Nai Basti, Tanjloo.

ii. Any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the attending facts and circumstances of the case may be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents."

Brief facts of the case:

That the Respondent No. 4 issued notification on 24.01.2012 in reference to letter No. CEO/A/SSA/14509-11 dated 23.01.2012, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for filing up two posts of ReT in newly opened School PS Nai Basti, Tanjloo on the basis of habitation. As stated, the petitioner being fully eligible on the basis of his qualification, responded to the aforesaid notification and accordingly, the respondents prepared a panel of the candidates showing the petitioner at Serial o. 3 and Respondent No. 7 at Serial No. 1, however, soon after the panel was framed, the petitioner submitted objections before the respondents stating therein that the Respondent No. 7 has less percentage of marks in graduation and the PG certificate submitted by her is not recognized by the University Grants Commission. It is also stated that the respondents did not pay any heed to the objections and written representations submitted by the petitioner, went ahead with the framing of panel of candidates who had applied for engagement as ReT in Nai Basi Tanjloo and accordingly, the petitioner filed compliant before Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag. The Respondent No. 5 sought report from the Respondent No. 6 who in turn sought report from the Respondent No. 4 and the Respondent No. 4 submitted report to the Respondent No. 6, stating therein, that the MA degree pursued by the Respondent No. 7 is not genuine as the candidate had not taken migration certification from the Kashmir University as per the report received from Assistant Registrar, Registration Section, University of Kashmir. It was also clearly reflected in the communication that as per the marks certificate (MA 1st year) issued from University Sikkim, during the same period the Respondent No. 7 has been also obtaining the training in cutting sewing trade at ITI, Anantnag, from June 2008 to July 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents 1 to 4 were time and again requested by the petitioner that he is the 2nd only eligible candidate and is entitled to appointment as ReT in PS Nai Basti Tanjloo but the respondents till date have not paid any heed to the requests and representations made by the petitioner, feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by medium of the instant writ petition.

Mr Shah, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, available in the Court, while entering appearance on behalf of the respondents, submits that no indefeasible right has accrued to the petitioner claiming her appointment. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General further submits that in terms of Government Order No. 919-Edu of 2018 dated 16th of November, 2018, the Government has already accorded sanction to the formal closure of the ReT Scheme and the ReT recruitment/ engagement process notified vide Government Order No.396-Edu of 2000 dated 28th of April, 2000 alongwith subsequent modifications/ amendments. A copy of Government order dated 16th of November, 2018, as produced by Mr Shah, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter.

By Government Order No.919-Edu of 2018 dated 16th of November, 2018, the Government has ordered as under:

"Sanction is hereby accorded that: -

i) Formal closure of the ReT Scheme and the ReT recruitment/ engagement process notified vide Government order No. 396-Edu of 2000 dated 28.04.2000 alongwith subsequent modifications/ amendments. However, the existing ReTs already appointed under the scheme or on ReT pattern shall continue to be governed under the erstwhile scheme till their regularization or otherwise;

ii) All advertisement notices for engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers or panels prepared where no engagement orders have been issued shall and shall always be deemed to have been cancelled/ withdrawn as ab-initio;

iii) No fresh advertisement for recruitment/ engagement under any ReT Scheme(s) shall henceforth be issued."

A bare perusal of the aforesaid Government Order makes it axiomatic that the Government has taken a policy decision in the matter, whereby the Government has accorded sanction to the formal closure of the ReT Scheme with a further stipulation that all advertisement notices for engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers or panels so prepared where no engagement orders have been issued shall be deemed to have been cancelled/ withdrawn as ab-initio. In that view of the matter, the relief claimed by the petitioner in the instant petition for seeking a direction to the respondents to issue appointment order in his favour against the ReT position in question cannot be granted. Once the Government has taken a policy decision cancelling/ withdrawing all the advertisement notices issued for engagement of ReTs or panels prepared where no engagement orders have been issued under ReT Scheme, the Court cannot direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner against a non-existing position, unless the Government order aforesaid is set aside/ modified by the competent authority.

In view of the preceding analysis, this writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit, as such, same shall stand dismissed in limine, alongwith the connected application. The petitioner, however, shall be at liberty to work out appropriate remedy as may be available to her under law with regard to challenging the Government Order dated 16th of November, 2018.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.