Zulfkar Ali vs State & Ors.

The petitioner has challenged appointment of respondent No.4 as RET Teaching Guide in Govt. High School Gandoh. His grievance is that

respondent No.4 has been appointed on the said post on the basis of Advertisement Notice issued on 10.04.2004 without the same having been

circulated for general public.

The facts of the case are that two posts of RET Teaching Guides became available in Govt. High School, Gandoh. After due compliance with

the procedure laid down in the RET Scheme, a select list of seven candidates was prepared by the Village Level Committee, in which the name of

petitioner figured at S.No.3. Since only two posts were available to be filled up in Govt. High School, Gandoh, the first two candidates in the panel

were selected. The person, namely, Surjit Singh, who figured at S. No. 1 in the said select list resigned from the said post after he was absorbed in

some other department, as a result of which the post occupied by him has fallen vacant. The recourse left to the respondents was either to appoint

a person next in the panel or to readvertise the post.

Respondents chose to readvertise the post by issuing Notification No.170305 dated 12.01.2004. In pursuance to the aforementioned

notification, the selection process was initiated and panel of 24 candidates was prepared. Respondent No.4 figured at S. No. 1 in the said panel. It

transpired that this vacancy was to be allotted to the S.T. category candidate. Consequently, one Ruksana Bano belonging to the said category

was appointed as RET teaching guide in Govt. Primary School, Dhadar from the said panel. Thereafter, another notification came to be issued on

10.04.2004 for filling up two posts of RET Teaching Guides in Govt. Primary School, Dhadar. Respondent No.4 came to be appointed as such

on the said school. It is her appointment which is being been questioned by the petitioner in the present petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The only question that has been raised by the petitioner is that earlier notification dated 10.04.2004 was not circulated for general public and the

panel which was prepared in pursuance to the notification dated 12.01.2004 was operated upon. He states that no fresh selection was made by

respondents after the issuance of notification dated 10.04.2004.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is lower in merit than respondent no.4 as reflected in the panel prepared by the respondents. The only

grievance of the petitioner is that while preparing the subsequent panel, notification dated 10.04.2004 was not circulated for the general public.

On the other hand, respondents state that vide earlier notification dated 12.01.2004, the appointment made was of the person belonging to ST

category. In response to Notification dated 10.04.2004, no applications were received by them, as a consequence whereof the panel already

prepared by them in terms of earlier notification dated 12.01.2004 was operated upon in which respondent no.4 was at S. No. 1.

The argument of Mr. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner is catchy, but on a deeper scrutiny it reveals that the appointment of respondent

no.4 was made strictly in accordance with the law. Assuming but not admitting that a fresh panel was required to be prepared in pursuance of

aforementioned notification dated 10.04.2004, the method of computing the merit was the marks obtained by the person in the last examination.

So if a fresh panel would have been prepared, even then respondent No.4 would have figured at S.No.4. The merit is the sole criteria for making

appointment to the post of RET Teaching Guide or for that matter for any other post. The petitioner does not dispute the eligibility of respondent

no.4 nor does he disputes her merit. All that which is seen is that notification dated 10.04.2004 was not circulated for the general public. This in my

opinion would not alter the situation. The respondents have operated the panel which was prepared in pursuance of notification dated 12.01.2004,

in which admittedly the petitioner figured at S.No.5 and respondent no.4 at S. No. 1. It is not his case that he has not been considered. Otherwise

also, respondents have stated that they have not received any application in pursuance of notification dated 10.04.2004, as a result of which they

have considered the panel prepared in pursuance to earlier Notification dated 12.01.2004.1 find no violation with this process of the respondents.

Respondent no.4 is admittedly higher in merit than the petitioner.

In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected CMP(s), if any.