Syed Anwar Shah vs State of J. and K.

Bansi Lal Bhat, J.—Respondent No. 4-Zonal Education Officer Jullia-Uri invited applications from eligible candidates to fill in the vacant

posts in P/S Bhati Mohalla (Mouri) of revenue village Kamal Kote. This was done in terms of notification No. ZEO/J/920 dated 29.09.2012. The

post had become available by disengagement of Rehbar-e-taleem in pursuance to Government Order No. 288 of 2009. The vacancy was to be

filled up on habitation basis. Petitioner who also applied for the said post claimed to be eligible in all respects. Petitioner figured at Serial No. 1 of

the Panel of eligible candidates issued by respondent No. 4. However, respondent No. 4 did not issue orders of engagement in favour of petitioner

on account of filing of a writ petition by one Seerat Irshad-respondent No. 5. Petitioner's case is that on the basis of the writ petition filed by

Seerat Irshad, respondent No. 3 directed respondent No. 4 to advertise the notification for the said post on the basis of revenue village. Thus,

respondent No. 4 came to be issued notification No. ZEO/J/1126 dated 30.11.2012. The writ petition filed by Seerat Irshad and others got

dismissed in default. Petitioner is aggrieved of the fresh notification issued by respondent No. 4 at the behest of respondent No. 3 for filling up the

vacancy on revenue village basis which, he alleges, was issued to benefit respondent No. 5-Seerat Irshad. Petitioner claims that despite filing of

objections by him, respondents have prepared a fresh panel of candidates in which Seerat Irshad-respondent No. 5 figures at Serial No. 1. He

assails the fresh notification as being arbitrary with further prayer to command the respondents to issue engagement order in his favour in terms of

the selection Panel drawn up by respondent No. 4 on habitation basis. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have filed objections wherein it is pleaded that

Bhati Mohalla did not qualify the norms of Government order No. 288 of 2009 as it was found to have total population of 93 souls and not

separated from village Kamal Kote on the basis of geographical barrier. These facts were revealed by the enquiry ordered by Chief Education

Officer, Baramulla-respondent No. 3 after the advertisement notification issued by respondent No. 4 was objected to by the inhabitants of village

Kamal Kote. Accordingly, the post was re-advertised on revenue village basis and respondent No. 5 figured at Serial No. 1 in the selection list

prepared on revenue village basis.

In regard to SWP No. 2378/2012, it is pleaded that respondent No. 5 did not pursue the same as she figured at the top of the selection Panel

prepared on revenue village basis. Respondent No. 5 has not appeared to contest the petition.

Heard and considered.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at this stage.

It appears that initially the vacancy was advertised on habitation basis. However, the inhabitants of village Kamal Kote objected to the same on

the ground that Bhati Mohalla did not qualify norms laid down in Government Order No. 288 of 2009. Respondent No. 3 appointed Principal

Higher Secondary School as Enquiry Officer to ascertain whether the norms laid down in Government Order No. 288 of 2009 had been followed.

The Enquiry Officer held enquiry and found that the population of Bhati Mohalla was barely 93 souls and the Mohalla was situated at stone's throw

from the village. Thus, it did not qualify as a separate habitation in terms of Government Order No. 288 of 2009. Based upon the enquiry report

respondent No. 3 ordered issuance of corrigendum in the notification and advertised the post of Rehbar-e-taleem for Primary School Bhati

Mohalla Kamal Kote on revenue village basis. Thus, the petitioner who figured at the top of the tentative select list prepared by respondent No. 4

on habitation basis got excluded from consideration for appointment. It is pointed out on behalf of respondents that the earlier engagements of

Rehbar-e-taleem(s) for Primary School Bhati Mohalla Kamal Kote had been made on revenue village basis. Thus, selection of petitioner on

habitation basis was kept on hold by respondent No. 4 till the enquiry established that Bhati Mohalla did not qualify as a habitation as per norms

laid down in Government Order No. 288 of 2009.

The fact that SWP No. 2378/2012 filed by Seerat Irshad got dismissed in default does not improve the case of petitioner who rested his claim

on habitation basis. While, it is true that the terms of advertisement for engagement as Rehbar-e-taleem for Primary School Bhati Mohalla Kamal

Kote could not be varied to the disadvantage of petitioner who figured at Serial No. 1 of the tentative select list, it is equally true that placing at the

top of the said list only entitled the petitioner to consideration for appointment/engagement as Rehabar-e-taleem which could not be made in

disregard of the terms of Government Order No. 288 of 2009 which reads as under:

Government of Jammu & Kashmir

Civil Secretariat, Education Department.

Subject: Rehabar-e-Taleem Scheme ensure people's participation in the management of Education at gross roots level.

Government Order No. 288/Edu. of 2009

Dated: 08.04.2009

The following explanation is added below, eligibility condition No. 1 laid down in Government order No. 398 of Edu 2000 dated 28.04.2000

(Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme)

Explanation:

Village means a Revenue village. However, where habitations in a Revenue Village are scattered a candidate belonging to a habitation popularly

known as a village at least one kilometer away from other habitations and having a population of more than 300 persons shall be entitled to seek

engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem in a local school.

The above explanation shall have prospective effect. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.

Sd/-

Secretary to Government

Education Department.

No. Edu.-1/Misc-68/2001

Dated: 08.04.2009

It is not disputed that the engagement of Rehbar-e-taleem(s) under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme is regulated by Government Order No. 398

of Edu. of 2000 dated 28.04.2000 (Rehbar-e-taleem Scheme) which provided for engagement of Rehbar-e-taleem(s) on revenue village basis in

rural areas. In terms of Government Order No. 288/Edu. of 2009 dated 08.04.2009 an explanation was added to provide for engagement on

habitation basis where a revenue village comprised of scattered habitations. A candidate belonging to a habitation which was at least one kilometer

away from other habitations and was having population of more than 300 persons was made eligible to seek engagement as Rehbar-e-taleem in a

local School. The effect of this explanation is that the local candidate from the habitation had to be preferred. However, habitation had to qualify

the test of being comprised of more than 300 souls and being located at least one kilometer away from other habitations. Once these conditions

were not satisfied, the selection had to be made on revenue village basis.

In the instant case, the process for selection was underway when upon objections of local inhabitants an enquiry was ordered by respondent

No. 3. The report of Enquiry Officer established that Bhati Mohalla did not qualify as a habitation for having failed both the tests. This necessitated

issuing of corrigendum to the advertisement notice to render candidates at the revenue village level eligible for engagement as Rehbar-e-taleem(s)

to fill in the vacancies at Primary School Bhati Mohalla. In view of this development taking place during selection process, no fault can be found

with issuance of corrigendum and subsequent drawing of selection Panel in which respondent No. 5 figured at the top of tentative selection list.

Petitioner, in the given circumstances, cannot claim that the respondents had violated any of his constitutional rights by issuing corrigendum to the

advertisement notice which resulted in enlarging the scope of selection to include all eligible candidates on revenue village basis. There is no merit in

the instant writ petition. Same is dismissed.