Sharda Devi & Anr. vs State & Ors.

The State Government vide Govt. order No. 396 of Edu 2000 dated 28.4.2000 accorded sanction to a scheme called RehbareTaleem Scheme

(hereinafter referred to as 'Scheme') intended to make up the deficiency of staff at the elementary level of education. The objectives of scheme

were to promote decentralized management of elementary education with the community participation and involvement, to ensure accountability

and responsiveness through community supervision and to operationalize effectively the schooling system at the grass root level. The Scheme

provided for services of teaching guides called RehbareTaleem with a role for them to act as a catalyst for quality education and to ensure overall

development of the personality of the children. The ultimate aim of the RehbareTaleem Scheme was to secure universal enrolment and to check out

the school dropouts. The aforementioned Govt. Order is comprehensive self contained and takes care of all aspects of the Scheme including the

role of village level committees, the eligibility for the teaching guides or RehbareTaleem proposed to be recruited, their mode of selection, the

honorarium to be paid to them and their regularization on their satisfactorily completing five years period on honorarium basis.

Zonal Education Officer, Zone Billawarrespondent No. 4 vide notice dated 28.8.2001 invited applications from eligible candidates through

respective village level committees for the RehbareTaleem vacancies available in different primary and middle schools of zone Billawar. The

advertisement notice reproduced the eligibility criteria for the advertised vacancies in consonance with the Scheme identified the schools/villages

were vacancies were available and gave the timeframe within which the applications were to be submitted. The annexure to the advertisement

notice serialized the schools as also the number of vacancies therein proposed to be filled up.

The petitioners claim to have submitted applications for the engagement as RehbareTaleem in Middle School Niali and Middle School Dhamlar

respectively. However, the petitioners did not find place in the selection list issued by the respondent No.3. Shri Ranjeet Singh S/o Charan Singh

R/o Dhamlarrespondent No.5 herein was selected for Middle School Raper village Dhamlar whereas Bushan Kumar S/o Ishwar Dass also

resident of Dhamlarrespondent No.6 herein was selected as RehbareTaleem for Middle School Niali. The petitioners, aggrieved by their

noninclusion in the select list and consequent appointment, have assailed the appointment of respondents 5 and 6 as RehbareTaleem made by

respondent No.3 and sought its quashment. The petitioners also seek a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners against the vacancies

to be available after the appointment of respondents 5 and 6 is setaside. The petitioners edifice the writ petition on the grounds that though the

petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.5 belong to the same Morah (Locality) and having regard to their place of residence were equally placed

to compete for the vacancy of RehbareTaleem in Middle School Niali, yet the petitioner No.1 had a superior right to be appointed against the

available vacancy as against the respondent No 5. on the ground that the petitioner No.1 had better academic qualification as against the

respondent No.5. It is pleaded that the petitioner No.1 has done her graduation in Arts (B.A.) as also in Education (B.Ed) and thus had an edge

over the claim of respondent No.5 to the vacancy who according to the petitioner No.1 had only done Masters in Urdu. The comparative merit

and technical qualification, according to the petitioner No.1 made her a better candidate for the aforesaid vacancy. The respondents are said to

have ignored the better academic qualification of the petitioner No.1 and also the directions of this court in Balwinder Kour's case. A good

teacher, it is averred, is backbone of society and a technically qualified person being well equipped to work as a teacher has a preferential right to

be considered for appointment as RehbareTaleem as against a candidate having no technical qualification. The respondents are alleged to have

acted arbitrarily and illegally while ignoring the petitioner No.1 and selecting respondent No.5 to man the post.

The challenge is thrown to selection of respondent No.6 as RehbareTaleem for Middle School Raper Village Dhamlar on the ground that the

respondent No.6 does not reside in the Morah (Locality) where the Middle School, for which respondent No. 6 has been selected as

RehbareTaleem, is situated. It is urged that the underlying object of RehbareTaleem Scheme is to ensure accountability of the RehbareTaleem'and

to attain the intended object, the scheme provides that the RehbareTaleem is to be drawn from the local community so that the local community

does not only have a say in the selection but also exercises effective supervision. It is pleaded that selection of respondent No.6 against the

vacancy available in the school of a Morah where respondent No.6 does not reside runs against the fundamental principles of RehbareTaleem

Scheme.

The respondents 1 to 4 in their objections, which at the request of the respondents are being treated as counter, refute the grounds set out in the

writ petition. The objections, after summarizing the salient features of the Scheme, deny that the selection was made unmindful of the merit of the

aspirants for the vacant positions. The respondents 1 to 4 while admitting that the petitioners as well as respondents 5 and 6 were recommended

for appointment as RehbareTaleem against the available vacancies, have insisted that having regard to the eligibility criteria, merit and the academic

qualification, the respondents 5 and 6 were selected for the available vacancies in the aforementioned Middle Schools. The respondents 1 to 4

have denied that respondent No.6 did not hail from the village where the vacancy was available. It is insisted that the residence in the concerned

village and not the Morah/Mohalla/Pati is the requirement of Govt. Order No. 396 dated 28.4.2000.

The Government Order No. 396 dated 28.4.2000, as pointed out, does not only deal with the aims and objectives of the Scheme and the role

the RehbareTaleems, is intended to play in universal enrolment and as catalyst for quality education, but also lays down the eligibility criteria for

appointment as a RehbareTaleem. The aforesaid Govt. Order provides for empanelment of a candidate from the locality as RehbareTaleem

provided the candidate possesses the minimum qualification of 10+2. The Government Order does not provide for any preferential treatment to a

candidate having academic qualification higher man 10+2. The reason and rationale for the eligibility criteria is not difficult to guess. It needs no

emphasis that RehbareTaleem scheme was, launched to meet the staff requirements of Schools located in difficult, inaccessible and far flung areas

where the teachers posted from other places would not ordinarily attend their duties regularly. Furthermore the scheme provides for making up the

deficiency in the school staff at elementary level. Be that as it may, the academic qualification requirement under the RehbareTaleem Scheme is

10+2 without any preferential superior right to the candidates possessing higher qualification. Against the said backdrop the claim made by the

petitioner No.1 to a preferential right of consideration for RehbareTaleem vacancy in Middle School Niali as against the respondent No.5 who

admittedly has done Masters in Urdu is not sustainable. There can be no disagreement that the State Government vide Govt. Order No. 1503Edu

of 2003 dated 1.10.2003 has room for comparative assessment of the academic qualification of aspirants for RehbareTaleem vacancy and it is

expressly provided that a professional degree like B.Ed and M.Ed shall have an edge as against a academic post graduate degree. However, the

Govt. Order is prospective in its operation and cannot be pressed into service by petitioner No.1 to substantiate her claim. The advertisement

notice, it may be stated at the cost of repetition, was issued on 28.4.2000 and the selection list prepared/issued on 10.9.2001 i.e. much before the

Govt. Order No. 1503Edu of 2003 dated 1.10.2003. The case set up by the petitioner No. 1 thus does not find support from the pleadings and

the record.

The petitioner No.2 has based his claim on the place of residence. If petitioner No.2 is to be believed the respondent No.6 does not hail from

the place where the school, in which RehbareTaleem vacancy was available, is situated. The case set up and the arguments advanced at Bar in

support of the case are made oblivious to the real import of the Scheme. It is true that the Scheme lays emphasis on the recruitment from the

locality where he/she has to serve. The object is that the RehbareTaleem is in a position to perform the role and discharge the duties visualized

under the RehbareTaleem Scheme. The RehbareTaleem Scheme nonetheless provides for the ""village"" as the place of residence as against the

Mohalla, Morah, or Pati. In other words an aspirant for RehbareTaleem vacancy should belong to the village where the vacancy is sought to be

filled up. The village level committee as visualized by the Scheme is even empowered to draw up a panel from adjoining village where no eligible

candidate from within the village is available. The emphasis thus is on the ""village"" and not on the sub unit of the village like a Mohalla/Morah.

Having said so, it needs to be noted that the Case set up by the petitioner No.2 is belied by the petition itself. The petitioner No.2 in the writ

petition has given his place of residence as Village Dhamlar Mohalla Miali Tehsil Billawar District Kathua and the place of residence of respondent

No.6 whom the petitioner wants to dislodge, is village Dhamlar, Morah Dhamlar, Tehsil Billawar. The petition thus itself indicates though both the

petitioner No.2 and respondent No.6 belong to the same village and mere fact that the respondent No.6 does not hail from Morah Raper does not

in any manner brighten up chances of petitioner No 2's case. This apart even petitioner No.2 does not belong to Morah Raper as is evident from

the petition itself.

The State Govt. through Govt. Order No. 563Edu of 2005 dated 24.8.2005 has set at rest the controversy, if any, as regards true import of

expression ""Village"" used in the RehbareTaleem Scheme. It stands clarified that the expression ""village"" used in the RehbareTaleem Scheme and

the subsequent instructions shall mean and deemed to have always meant a revenue village.

So viewed the writ petition is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.

This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.