Tanveer Ahmad Wani vs State and others

Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Judge

Official respondents issued an advertisement notice for filling up two Rehbar-e-Taleem posts in the discipline of Mathematics and Science in

Middle School Hakoora-Upgraded School. After having received the response, panel was prepared, wherein, Mukhtar Ahmad Khan figured at

serial number No. 1, Abdul Rashid Itoo figured at serial number 2 and Najma Bashir at serial number 3. Mukhtar Ahmad was appointed in

Mathematics stream and Najma in Science stream. Javid Ahmad Itoo was figuring at serial number 4 in the panel who questioned the selection of

Najma by filing a writ petition-SWP No. 1440/2009 which was allowed with the direction to respondents to accord consideration to his post

graduation certificate. Later on said Javid Ahmad Itoo came to be engaged being more meritorious as compared to Najma.

It is apt to mention herein that candidates who are figuring in the panel or even the drop-outs have not questioned the engagement of Mukhtar

Ahmad or the Advertisement Notice till today. In the instant writ petition, the engagement/ appointment of said Javid Ahmad Itoo is put to

challenge on the ground that selection was to be made on habitation basis and not from the entire revenue village.

It is worthwhile to again make a mention of the fact that when Najma and Mukhtar came to be selected and even when the writ petition was

filed by Javid Ahmad Itoo, the question that has been raised in this petition was never an issue. Even the appointment of Mukhtar has remained

unquestioned. It appears that after Najma lost the battle before this court and Javid Ahmad Itoo got the usufruct, petitioner questioned his

appointment on this ground though, he has not, as discussed hereinabove, questioned the appointment of Najma or Mukhtar whereby selection

was made after considering the candidates of the entire revenue village who had applied.

It is apt to mention here that petitioner has neither challenged the advertisement notice till filing of the instant writ petition, nor has he questioned

the judgment passed in SWP No. 1440/2009 before the appropriate Bench. This renders the writ petition unsustainable at this stage, on merits,

for, the ground of challenge raised in this petition was very much available to the petitioner at that particular time. He has thus acquiesced in the

matter and is therefore debarred from filing this writ petition now. In view of what is stated hereinbefore, the instant petition appears to be proxy

litigation and is accordingly dismissed.