DHARAMVIR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Government of Jammu and Kashmir launched a scheme known as 'Rehbar -e -Taleem' with the object of promoting, the decentralized management of elementary education with the community participation and involvement and to ensure accountability and responsiveness through a strong backup and supervision through the community, to operationalise effectively the schooling system at the grassroot level. Under the scheme provision for acquiring the services of the Teaching Guides (Teachers) in Primary and Middle schools to make up the deficiency of staff, has been made.

(2.) PURSUANT to Govt. order No. 396 -Edu of 2000 dated 28.4.2000 regarding implementation of the scheme for ensuring functioning of these schools, applications were invited for appointed as 'Rehbar -e -Taleem' for Government Middle school Kah, Tehsil Billawar. In response to the said notification the petitioner and respondents Nos. 5&6 applied and offered their services. The Zonal Education Officer Bhadu prepared a panel of candidates and on the basis of the merit obtained, respondents 5&6 along with two others were appointed and the petitioners was not appointed. The petitioner through the present writ petition has challenged the selection of respondents 5&6 as 'Rehbar -e -Taleem'. His challenge is two -fold(l) that respondent No. 5 being married out side the Village Kah, was not entitled to be appointed as under the scheme firstly those candidates who live in that particular village can be appointed and if no such candidate is available from that particular village, then the candidature of persons residing in adjoining villages can be considered. As against the appointment of respondent No. 6 the contention of the petitioner is that he does not possess the requisite qualifications and as such could not be legally appointed to the post under the scheme. Upon above two grounds learned counsel for the petitioner submits that selection of respondents 5&6 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.

(3.) IN view of the stand taken by the respondents in their reply, the challenge to the appointment of respondents 5&6 on the point of merit position has no basis.