GH. NABI Vs. AMRIK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the writ petition, the Petitioner contended that he belongs to village Kastigarh, where the vacancy exists and, accordingly, he should have been appointed as Rehbar-e-Taleem. Learned Judge, who dealt with the writ petition, noted the explanation contained in the Government order, which explained that the word "belong" and "local candidate" should mean that the candidate to be appointed is actually residing at the time of appointment in the village where the appointment is to be made. Taking note of the fact that Petitioner was resident of Kastigarh and the vacancy also existed in Kastigarh, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition with ancillary directions.

(2.) In the present appeal, the contention is that the word "village" used in the explanation is the village and not a Mohalla of a village. There is no dispute that State has come up with a clarification indicating that the word "village" used in Government orders in connection with appointment of Rehbar-e-Taleem should mean revenue village. Though, this clarification has come late, but since it was a clarification, in law, should be deemed to be clarification of things in existence from their inception. The same view has been taken by Division Bench of this Court in case titled Gambhir Chand and Anr. v. Prabhat Singh and Ors. decided on March 07, 2009. In that case, Court has also dealt with meaning of the word village. There is no dispute that Appellants, who were appointed as Rehbar-e-Taleem, in the instant case, were residents of same village where the writ Petitioner was also a resident. The fact, however, remains that the writ Petitioner was resident of a mohalla within that village, where the school was in existence and, accordingly, where the vacancy cropped up. For the said vacancy, all eligible candidates of that village were entitled to offer themselves for being appointed and only he could be appointment amongst them, who was best in merit.

(3.) There being no dispute in the instant case that the Appellants had better merit than writ Petitioner, the selection of the Appellants, as was made, could not be interfered with. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order under appeal and dismiss the writ petition.