Renu Bala vs State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others

Bansi Lal Bhat, J.—Petitioner, claiming to be qualified as M.A. B.Ed. and hailing from village Salalpur applied for the post of RET Teacher

in response to Advertisement Notice dated 09.08.2012 issued by respondent no. 3. The post was advertised for NPS Dhupshari, Zone Marheen.

However, the Village Education Committee (for short, VEC) did not recommend her name for selection. Allegedly this was done on the behest of

Sarpanch of the Halqa Panchayat, who also happened to be the convener of VEC, Salalpur. Respondent no. 4 Zonal Education Officer refused to

accept the application form of petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has assailed the impugned decision of VEC and claimed the following relief;

i) Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner as RET Teacher in Newly Primary School, Dhupshari, situated

in Village Salalpur, being the resident of Village Salalpur, by entertaining the application form of the petitioner.

ii) Writ of mandamus directing the respondents including respondent no. 5 to recommend the name of the petitioner for her selection as RET

Teacher in Newly Primary School, Dhupshari situated in Zone Marheen and village Salalpur.

iii) And further a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to entertain the application form of the petitioner for her selection and appointment

against the post of RET Teacher in Newly Primary School, Dhupshari, in zone Marheen advertised through notification dated 09.08.2012 issued

through Chief Education Officer Kathua by relaxation of the cutoff date fixed for the submission of application form.

In terms of order dated 24.08.2012, Zonal Education Officer, Marheen was directed to entertain the petitioner's Application Form and permit her

to participate in the Selection Process for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem in NPS Dhupshari-Salalpur subject to determination of her eligibility by

this Court.

Arti Sharma, claiming to be an interested party on account of her figuring in the selection panel, was arrayed as respondent no. 7 in terms of

order dated 02.11.2012. While respondents 5 and 6 did not appear to contest the petition, all other respondents filed their reply and submitted

documents which have been taken on record. The contesting respondents 1 to 4 have filed objections pleading that two posts of RET Teachers

were advertised on 11.08.2012 for NPS Dhupshari village Salalpur Zone Marheen under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan by the Chief Education Officer,

Kathua. The last date of submission of the application form was 21.08.2012. Petitioner also filed her application form which was not entertained as

the same had not been signed by the VEC members/Sarpanch of the said Village. However, petitioner's application form was entertained on

27.08.2012 pursuant to the directions of this Court. A panel of six candidates was prepared wherein the petitioner figured at Serial No. 2 and

private respondent No. 7- Arti Sharma figured at Serial No. 3. The panel was submitted to VEC members in terms of guidelines of Sarva Shiksha

Abhiyan but all members objected to the placement of petitioner in the list on the ground that she was not residing in village Salalpur for the last 35

years. Respondent no. 7 pleaded that in the first instance, selection panel consisted of only two candidates namely, Ashwani Kumar figuring at

Serial No. 1 and private respondent no. 7 figuring at Serial No. 2. The private respondent claims to be a graduate with B.Ed. qualification and

resident of village Dhupshari Salalpur satisfying the eligibility criteria for appointment as RET Teacher in the said NPS Dhupshari Salalpur. It is

further pleaded that the petitioner's family had left the village more than 30 years before and settled in Ward No. 16 Lower Shiva Nagar, Kathua.

Thus, respondents 3 to 6 were justified in keeping the petitioner out of consideration zone. It is further pleaded that the petitioner's family is no

more resident of village Salalpur and the petitioner is ineligible for selection.

Heard the rival sides and perused the Record.

The controversy in the instant petition is limited to eligibility of petitioner whose application form was not verified and endorsed by the VEC. It is

not disputed that Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme was adopted to effectuate the provision of services of Teaching Guides in the Primary and

Middle Schools to make up the deficiency of staff. The Teaching Guides were to be designated as Rehbar-e-Taleem teachers and were to ensure

the overall development of the personality of children. These Teaching Guides were to be drawn from the local community. For selection of RET

Teachers, Village Level Committees (for short, VLC) were constituted, composition whereof included some parents, men of social standing from

the locality, representatives of women and weaker sections. The assessment for requirement of teachers in Primary/Middle Schools was left to

VLC which was required to draw up a panel of eligible and qualified persons of the village. Among other considerations, the candidates were

required to belong to the village where there was assessed deficiency of staff. It was only on the certification of VLC that no local candidate from

the village was available that eligible candidates from adjoining villages could find place in the panel of selection.

In the instant case, applications were invited for engagement as RET Teachers in institutions including NPS/UPS Dhupshari, village Salalpur

falling in Zone Marheen. The terms and conditions in the advertisement notice clearly specified that the applicant must be residing in the same

village/ward (in case of TAC/NAC) where school is functioning for which advertisement is made. In the instant case, the engagement of RET

teachers was to be made due to opening of NPS Dhupshari of village Salalpur and in terms of condition no. 3 in the Advertisement Notice which is

commensurate with the standard terms under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme, the applicant was required to be residing in the same village where

the school was to be set up. Two posts were available for selection. Since selection of Ashwani Kumar, figuring at Serial No. 1 in the selection

panel is not questioned, only one post was left. Admittedly petitioner figures at Serial No. 2 and private respondent no. 7 figures at Serial No. 3 in

the selection panel. However, VEC has declined to verify that the petitioner was residing in village Salalpur at the relevant time of issuance of

Advertisement Notice. Learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner belongs to village Salalpur and has been residing

there at the relevant time though she had temporarily been residing with her family at Kathua for some time. Learned counsel for the petitioner laid

emphasis on the fact that such temporary absence from the village for sometime did not amount to abandoning of the village and the fact that

petitioner's family had surrendered their Ration Card at Kathua and again taken up residence at Salalpur was sufficient to render her eligible for

selection as RET for NPS Dhupshari Salalpur. Learned counsel for private respondent no. 7, per contra, contended that the findings of enquiry by

the VEC clearly established that the family of petitioner had left the village and shifted to Kathua more than 30 years before. He placed on record a

copy of the enquiry report conducted in proceedings initiated by Ashwani Kumar and private respondent no. 7. The report has been prepared by

Tehsildar Hiranagar in discharge of his public duties wherein he has endorsed the report of Naib Tehsildar to the effect that Jagdish Chander father

of petitioner had abandoned village Salalpur more than 30 years before and taken up residence at Lower Shiva Nagar, Kathua, Ward No. 16.

On consideration of the stand taken by the rival sides, it emerges that the Village Education Committee members, barring one, had declined to

verify that the petitioner was actually residing in village Salalpur when the Advertisement Notice was issued. It is not denied that the petitioner's

family had shifted to Kathua and even obtained Ration Card there. The fact that the Ration Card was surrendered sometime before the selection

process was set in motion does not come to the rescue of petitioner when she contends that she was residing in village Salalpur. The documents

annexed with the objections of private respondent No. 7 clearly demonstrate that petitioner's family had settled in Ward No. 16 of Kathua.

Annexure R-4 is the Voter List wherein petitioner figures at Serial No. 173, Annexure R-5 is the Certificate issued by Sarpanch, Halqa Kora Panu

to the effect that petitioner's father-Jagdish Chander was not residing in village Salalpur for the last thirty years and that he had shifted to Ward No.

16, Lower Shiva Nagar, Kathua, Annexure R-6 is the declaration form of verification for rationing purpose which incorporates particulars of

petitioner and her family as residents of Municipal Ward No. 16, Mohalla Lower Shiva Nagar, Kathua and Annexure R-7 is the objection filed by

Village Education Committee Member (SC) Salalpur-Shri Pars Ram filed before respondent No. 4 wherein he has stated that the petitioner had

obtained her thumb impression on the verification form by cheating whereas the petitioner's family had shifted to Kathua since 1980. This Village

Education Committee Member was the only one who had not declined to verify residential particulars of petitioner for village Salalpur. Annexure

R-9 is the panel prepared at village level in which private respondent no. 7 figures at serial No. 2 and the same is duly verified by the Village

Education Committee Members and the Sarpanch. Annexure R-10 is the tentative panel for engagement of RET in NPS Dhupshari wherein

petitioner figures at Serial No. 2 and private respondent No. 7 figures at Serial No. 3. It records objection by all the Village Education Committee

Members that the petitioner figuring at serial No. 2 is presently residing at Ward No. 16, Kathua as her family has settled there since 35 years. The

report of Tehsildar Hiranagar taken on record during the hearing today provides the clinching evidence establishing conclusively that petitioner's

family had shifted to Ward No. 16, Lower Shiva Nagar, Kathua more than 30 years before, after abandoning village Salalpur. Same being

admissible as record of proceedings drawn up by a public servant in discharge of his public duties and supported by the objections of the Village

Education Committee, who declined to verify the residence of petitioner as Salalpur, knocks the bottom of petitioner's claim that she was actually

and factually residing in village Salalpur when the selection process was commenced, i.e. at the time of issuance of Advertisement Notice. Viewed

thus, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to carve out a case for indulgence of this Court. The writ petition is devoid of any

merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed along with connected CMA(s).