KANCHAN DEVI Vs. SS KAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN terms of court order dt. 10th of Oct96, respondents 1 to 4 were directed to consider the case of petitioner for appointment to the post of teacher in district Doda in any ensuing selection on the basis of eligibility as prescribed in the advertisement notice No. 4 of 1989 dt. 12th of June 89.

(2.) MR Shukla, learned counsel, appearing for respondent-Service Selection Board, submitted that the eligibility for the post of teacher was changed in the year 1992 and the basic qualification was provided as 10+2. Learned counsel also submitted that the selection process for making selection of suitable candidates for being appointed on the post of teacher was initiated in the year 2005. It is further submitted that in view of the change of eligibility criteria, the criteria for making the selection was also changed. It is submitted that in the year 1989, the basic educational qualification for the post of teacher was matriculation. The marks allocated for the said qualification were 75, 5 marks were for additional qualification and 20 marks were fixed for viva-voce. It is submitted that in view of the subsequent change in the eligibility qualification, the criteria for selection was also changed. Learned counsel submitted that in the selection process of 2005, petitioner was considered but could not be recommended for appointment. It is submitted that the merit of the petitioner was evaluated in terms of criteria as was prescribed in the year 1989, but she could not recommended for being appointed on the post of teacher in-as-much-as she had secured less marks than the last cut-off merit which was fixed in the selection process of 2005. It is submitted that a consideration order has been passed, which has not been challenged by the petitioner.

(3.) COMPARING her merit with the candidates who participated in the selection process of 2005 on a different eligibility qualification and different criteria was not the mandate contained in the judgment dt. 10th of Oct96. Otherwise also, it does not stand to reason that how the merit of the candidates could be compared when the same is adjudged on the basis of different eligibility qualification and different criteria. The consideration order which has been passed has the effect of whittling down the judgment dt. 10th of Oct96. The court judgment has remained un-implemented. The petition was filed by the petitioner in the year 1991 and was decided in the year 1996. One more contempt petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of on the undertaking of counsel for the respondents that the judgment passed by the court would be implemented.