Sunita Devi vs State Of J&K And Others

Rajesh Bindal, J

By filing the intra-court appeal, the appellant has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 22.112016, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

The facts of the case are that pursuant to advertisement Notice No. 3 of 2011 dated 28.04.2011, the appellant as well as respondent No. 4 applied for the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher in Primary School, Patyari. Respondent No. 4 was selected on account of her higher merit. The petitioner filed SWP No. 927/2012, challenging the selection of respondent No. 4. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 30.04.2012. It was observed that selection is in progress. The tentative selection list has been notified. If any person is aggrieved he can file objections. The issue was as to whether Mohalla Patyari qualified to be a habitation. It was in that light that the matter was referred back to the authority concerned to consider the plea raised by the appellant in the objections filed. Without waiting for the decision on the objections or following the remedy which could be available to the appellant on account of non- compliance of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition, she filed the fresh writ petition bearing SWP No.1883/2012. The order passed whereby is the subject matter of the present appeal.

The prayer made in the writ petition filed was to quash the engagement of respondent No. 4 as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher. The learned Single Judge while observing regarding maintainability of the writ petition for the same relief, disposed of the same with the direction to the official respondents to communicate the decision taken on the objections filed by the appellant. The official respondents were given liberty to operate the panel regarding appointment of respondent No. 4. It was further noted in para 4 of the impugned order that the stand taken by the official respondents in the objections filed was that Mohalla Patyari did not qualify to be a habitation in terms of the Govt. Order No. 288 of 2009, hence the selection of respondent No. 4 was not illegal. The respondent No.4 joined her duties. In fact both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 belong to the same village as is evident from select list, namely, Ambaran. The respondent No. 4 was more meritorious and even better qualified as compared to the appellant as she is BA, B.Ed, M.ED whereas appellant is merely BA, B.ED.

Considering the aforesaid facts, in our opinion there is no merit in the present appeal, the same deserves to be dismissed as there is no error in the selection of respondent No. 4 as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.