STATE OF J&K Vs. ZAHIDA BANOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SERVICE write petitions 139/01 and 812/01 came to be filed in quick succession by one Mst. Zahida Bano. In 439/01 it is averred by her that the Deputy Commissioner Kupwara (for short DC) is hell bent to appoint respondent No. 6 namely Miss Nighat as teacher for extraneous considerations in contravention of the scheme called Rehbar -e -Taleem (for short scheme) notwithstanding the fact that she lacks eligibility, for, she is neither a resident of the village where vacancy is available nor is resident of the adjoining village. The said writ petition came up for consideration before the Single Bench on 16/04/2001. Having considered

(2.) TO appreciate the role assigned to the Director by the scheme the relevant para of the scheme may be noticed:

(3.) THE Director while registering his concern conveyed to the DC that appointment of respondent 6 was not in the interests of the school, clarifying further that the words "revenue village are unknown to the scheme. The clarification by the Director should have clinched the issue but the DC did not choose to go by the accurate advice of the Director. Situation is conceivable where Director would have erred by taking a stand in breach of the scheme but in such eventuality, the option for the DC was to refer the matter to the Government and not to take a decision on his own. However, such state of affair has not moved the Government although the Director has endorsed the communication aforementioned to the Principal Secretary to Government Eduction Department and inaction on the part of the Government has landed the controversy in the court resuiting in multiplicity of proceedings in the form of contempt petition, besides a subsequent service writ petition 812/2001 challenging the DCs approval. Alongside a CMP was filed which received consideration of the court and in essence earlier interim direction was reiterated, yet DC did not undo the approval/appointment. Being fully alive to the ambit of the scheme which excludes respondent 6 from consideration zone the DC has made an abortive attempt to overcome the bar by making reference to the guidelines. For ready reference, the relevant paras of the impugned approval may be noticed: "... Whereas as per guidelines the village has to be taken as a Unit for making engagements. Whereas Botungi and Nad are not separate villages but are parties of Revenue Village Tangdhar. Whereas keeping in view the guidelines framed on the subject and merit of the candidates, approval to the engagement of Nighat Parveen W/o Gias Ud Din R/o Tanghdhar being the most meritorious candidate is hereby given."