JANAK RAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these petitioners claims have been preferred and challenges thrown to the appointment of teachers, being public employment and national wealth, where the petitioners are alleged have been denied their due share under the guise of selection process by which the merit is stated to have been eroded and the inefficient, ineligible and favourites selected and appointed as teachers in the district of Kathua on extraneous considerations and in disregard to the rules applicable or the administrative guidance prescribed.

(2.) IT is alleged that the respondent -selection board vide advertisement notice No. 2 of 1987 dated 2 -1 -1987 invited applications on prescribed forms from permanent residents of the State for the appointment as teachers in the districts of Kathua, Jammu and Rajouri, prescribing therein the minimum qualification of matriculation and above for the posts advertised. The petitioners applied on the prescribed form and after preliminary verification of qualifications the selection board decided to hold interviews of the eligible candidates for which interview cards were issued in favour of such candidates including the petitioners. It is submitted that the interviews for the posts in the District of Kathua were held at four tehsil headquarters namely, Billawar, Kathua, Hiranagar and Basohli. It is alleged that no definite system or pattern was adopted by the members of the board conducting interviews nor was any uniform standard, criteria or test laid down for the said purpose. The interviews are alleged to have not been conducted by the board jointly but by individual members. Despite completion of the interviews by the end of December, 1988, the list of selected candidates was not published either by the respondent -board or any other authority. Individual appointment orders are stated to have been issued by the District Education Officer (DEO) in favour of different candidates being respondents 9 to 572 in Writ petition No. 1048 of 1989. The petitioners approached the DEO, Kathua for the issue of the list of the selected candidates to enable the petitioners to find out about their own position but no such list was issued till the appointment orders in favour of the selected candidates had been issued. It is submitted that from the list issued to the petitioners glaring illegalities and irregularities have come to light. It is submitted that no specific, reasonable method was adopted by the selection board for evaluating the suitability of the candidates who had applied for the post. It is alleged that as no norms and criterion is laid down by the board for making the selection, the whole process or selection and subsequently appointment of selected candidates is liable to be set aside. In the absence of a rational, uniform, non -discriminatory standard the whole selection process is liable to be quashed. The petitioners who claim to be better qualified and possessing higher academic degrees have been ignored whereas the respondents; with lesser qualifications have been selected on the whims of the authorities and the Board. The petitioners claim that comparative merit assessed on the basis of uniform, rational and non -discriminatory standard which are applied objectively while assessing the merit of each candidate, alone could have led to the just and proper selection. The selection is alleged to have been made on the basis of the religion and place of birth rendering it liable to be quashed under Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India, The respondents have allegedly made reservation on the basis of some backward areas whereas no such reservation had been made in the district of Kathua. The selection is alleged to have been made on the basis of vacancies allotted to different tehsils of district Kathua and further to different blocks within the tehsil. The selection is further alleged to have been made entirely on the basis of the interview conducted by the individual members of the Board in which no definite system, pattern or mode was prescribed or adopted. There was no uniformity or objectivity in the interview which was imperative to make any assessment of merit on the basis of viva voce, valid fair and proper. It is further submitted that the manner in which the appointments were made has raised grave doubts about the fairness and validity of the selection. In the first place, list of 389 candidates was sent to the D.E.O. for issue of appointment orders and subsequently another list of 173 candidates was issued. The lists are alleged to have been manipulated on account of large scale bungling. Selection of a number of respondents has been challenged on the ground of their being not eligible for selection and having been appointed on account of their personal influence. It is submitted that respondents, namely, Sunil Datt S/o Punnu Ram, Sureshta Devi D/O Prem Nath and Nirmal Sharma D/O Agya Ram. were selected despite their having not appeared in any interview. Similarly Mrs. Sunita Gupta respondent was selected despite her having ceased to remain a State subject after her marriage. Respondent Sharuti Sharma is alleged to have been, selected on account of her being daughter -in -law of one of the ministers and not on the basis of merit and suitability. Respondent Atiq -ul -Rehman was selected despite his involvement in a henious offence of murder. It has been prayed that selection of the selected -respondents, be quashed and a direction be issued to the official respondents to make the selection and appointment afresh. It is also prayed that a command be issued to respondents 1 to 8 to appoint the petitioners as teachers in the district of Kathua.

(3.) THE respondents have filed identical counter -affidavits in some of the petitions which are held to have been filed in all petitions. In the counter -affidavit filed it is submitted that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed for misjoinder and non -joinder of necessary parties. It is alleged that no fundamental or legal right of the petitioners have been violated or infringed inasmuch as the petitioners had been considered by the selection board and after due consideration they were not selected as teachers. Selection is stated to have been made in pursuance of SRO -459 of 1987 dated 15 -9 -1987 which authorised the board to adopt and follow the procedure/modus operandi it may deem fit for the selection of candidates for such category. It is stated that a uniformly approved criteria was adopted by the Board keeping in view the academic qualifications of the candidates particularly the basic merit obtained by them in matriculation examination plus merit fixed for higher qualification. Merit, suitability and performance was adjudged by the selection committee members at the time of interview of the candidates. While selecting candidates for the post of teachers, due consideration is stated to have been given to the candidates of scheduled castes and other reserved categories of ex -servicemen, handicapped, part -time instructors, candidates hailing from bad pocket, border blocks etc. so far as they came up to the mark. It is submitted that out of large number of candidates only a limited number had to be selected keeping in view the reserved categories. The issuance of the advertisement notice and submission of the application forms by the petitioners and respondents has not been denied. The qualification and eligibility of the petitioners is admitted. The allegations of favoritism -nepotism, corruption and political pressures have been denied. The selection board complied with the instruction/directions issued by the Government from time to time pertaining to the selection of candidates of the posts of teachers. The criteria adopted by the Board in pursuance to SRO -459 dated 15 -9 -1987 is stated to be as under: