PARVEEN AKHTER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved for determination in the above titled service writ petitions viz SWP No. 2400/2001,9-A/2003, SWP No.1025/ 2004, SWP No. 1325/2004, SWP No. 662/2007 and SWP No. 1705/2008 is identical and all the petitions are accordingly with the consent of Counsel for parties taken up together for final disposal. SWP's 2400/2001 and SWP No. 1024/2004 stand formally admitted to hearing on 4th October 2001 and 17th December 2004 respectively. SWP's 9-1/2003, 1325/2004, 1662/2007 and 1705/2008 are admitted to hearing. The objections/reply filed in all the petitions at the request for Learned Counsel for respondents are taken as Counter Affidavit. Counsel for the petitioners in the all the six petitions does not propose to file any rejoinder.

(2.) Briefly stated the petitioners case is that the petitioners were engaged on contractual basis as part time Instructors in different Non Formal Education Centres vide (1) No. 2126-50 dated 02.03.1981 PTC Centre Kila Behrote Block Thanamandi Poonch, (2) NO. AE/NFP/295-97 dated 21.01.1997 PTC Sar Gursai, Poonch, (3) No. 581-82 dated 16.03.1991, PTC Laparachachian Gursai, Poonch, (4) No.DPO/PTC/553-54 dated 27.01.1995 PTC Bakore Block Jourian Jammu, (5) No. 445-47 dated 24.03.1994 PTC Fazal-abad Poonch, (6) No. 908-10 dated 11.12.1979 Bain Gali Thanamandi (7) No. Nil dated 11.06.1982 PTC Hattan Sari, Rajouri (8) No. 112-14 dated 22.05.1990 PTC Kamsar, Ward No. 1 Poonch; that the petitioners discharged their duties, honestly, diligently and to the entire satisfaction of their superiors and that the petitioners in terms of Government order No. 325- EDU of 1985 dated 16th July 1985 have a right to be considered for appointment as teachers against 3% reservation quota fixed under the said Government order in their respective districts. The petitioners in each of the writ petitions claim to be entitled to the benefit under the Government order, pleading that a number of part time Instructors have been given benefit, of reservation under the said Government order and that the petitioners being similarly situated can not be denied such benefit by the respondents.

(3.) The respondents resist the writ petitions broadly on following two grounds: