RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-writ Petitioner (hereinafter to be referred to as writ Petitioner only) was selected as Teaching Guide in Govt. Primary School, Deeing, Tehsil Nowshera, District Rajouri vide order No. ZEO/D 1160-98 dated 24-1-2004. He consequently joined the said school. A complaint was moved by Respondent No. 5 against him, alleging therein that he possessed lesser percentage of marks in graduation as compared to him (Respondent No. 5). Ultimately, Director, School Education, Jammu (Respondent No. 2) vide order No. DSEJ/RET/23469 dated 4-3-2004 cancelled the selection of the writ Petitioner, which was questioned by him through the medium of writ petition bearing SWP No. 486 of 2004. During the pendency of the lis, operation of the order of cancellation of selection of the writ Petitioner was stayed. The writ petition ultimately stands dismissed vide impugned judgment dated October 15, 2009 mainly on the ground that the writ Petitioner was admittedly having less percentage of marks in graduation as compared to that of private Respondent No. 5 and, therefore, the order of cancellation of selection passed by Respondent No. 2 does not suffer from any fault. Aggrieved of the said Judgment/ order, the writ Petitioner is once again before us through the instant Letters Patent Appeal, which is at admission stage.

(2.) Heard Mr. Sethi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Veenu Gupta, Mrs. Goswami appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Ms. Shivani Jalali for private Respondent No. 5. Memo of appeal, impugned judgment and the Writ Court record have also been perused by us.

(3.) Mr. Sethi submits that the writ Petitioner was not only B.A., but also possessing the degree of B. Ed., which is a professional course for teachers and as such, the case of the writ Petitioner was considered as per the guidelines issued by the government and ultimately, he came to be selected in January, 2004. He then submits that may be at the time of submission of application form for the post, the writ Petitioner was having compartment in B. Ed (Urdu subject), but subsequently, he was declared passed. He had otherwise cleared the said compartment before he was appointed. Strengthening his arguments, Mr. Sethi then submits that Select Panel/Committee had considered the qualification of the writ Petitioner as B.A., B. Ed whereas, the private Respondent was simply a graduate and, therefore, the Select Panel took the professional qualification of the writ Petitioner into account and issued the order of appointment in his favour. He then submits that on a false and frivolous complaint of the private Respondent, the appointment of the writ Petitioner was cancelled.