SHAZIA BASHIR Vs. TANVEERA AKHTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 30.10.2018 passed by the Writ Court in SWP No.410/2005 filed by respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner) whereby the said respondent had challenged the engagement of the appellant as Education Volunteer and her subsequent engagement as Rehbar-eTaleem teacher and General Line Teacher. Vide the impugned judgment and order dated 30.10.2018, the learned Writ Court has allowed the writ petition and the engagement of appellant as Education Volunteer and her subsequent engagement as Rehbar-eTaleem teacher as well as her appointment as General Line Teacher has been quashed.

(2.) As per the case projected before the Writ Court, the writ petitioner as well as appellant are residents of Gousia Colony Vessu, Anantnag, and both of them had secured qualification of 10+2. According to the writ petitioner, at the time when appellant was engaged as an Education Volunteer in EGS Centre, Vessu, in the year 2004, the father of the appellant, who happened to be the headmaster of a local school, had managed to suppress the advertisement notice, as a result of which the writ petitioner and several other eligible candidates could not offer their candidature for engagement as Education Volunteer. Thus, the position of Education Volunteer was filled up by the official respondents without resorting to proper advertisement, as a consequence whereof the appellant herein came to be engaged as an Education Volunteer in terms of engagement order dated 16.12.2004. According to the writ petitioner, the said engagement of the appellant is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, as such, is unsustainable in law.

(3.) Another contention that was raised by the writ petitioner before the Writ Court was that the appellant herein had obtained B. Com degree from Government Degree College, Anantnag, as a regular candidate though she was shown to have worked as an Education Volunteer during the same period. According to the writ petitioner by doing so, the appellant has violated the terms of her engagement.