PREETI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF J. & K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 08.08.2013 passed by learned Single Judge in SWP No. 1989/2010 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant (hereinafter to be referred to as 'petitioner') against canceling her engagement and in her place appointing private respondent No. 6 (Nek Ram S/o. Jakar Ram) as Rehbar-e-Taleem (R-e-T) in mathematics in Upper Primary School, Gajore, in terms of advertisement notice Notification No. DIP/J-8483 dated 08.02.2010 stands dismissed. In terms of the aforesaid notification, two vacancies of R-e-T in UPS Gajore, one each in Science and Math stream, were advertised. Name of the petitioner was recommended for engagement of R-e-T in Math by Chief Education Officer, Reasi, which was approved by Director School Education. Subsequently, Director School Education realized that in terms of the administrative direction issued vide Order No. Edu/PS/Secy/11/2009 dated 22.06.2009 for the engagement of teachers in Upper Primary Schools for Science and Math, higher Science/mathematics qualification have to be given priority and in the case of the petitioner, she had math background only upto level of 10+2 as against private respondent No. 6 who was Graduate with math as one of the subjects, consequently passed an order dated 13.08.2010 canceling the engagement of the petitioner and appointing respondent No. 6 as R-e-T in UPS, Gajore, aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed SWP No. 1989/2010, which has now been dismissed by the learned Writ Court following the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case titled 'Javeed Ah. Khanday v. State of J & K & Ors.,2012 SLJ 1059.

(2.) The case of the petitioner was also tested on the touch stone of violation of principles of natural justice and finding returned against her is based on the rationale that giving an opportunity of being heard to her would have been a sheer formality as the result would still remain the same for the reason that the petitioner could not steal march over private respondent No. 6 for engagement in the aforesaid school as Math teacher having mathematics background only up to the level of 10+2 whereas private respondent No. 6 was a graduate degree holder with mathematics as one of the subjects, which certainly was the higher qualification in a particular required stream.

(3.) Heard Mr. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the grounds carved out in the memo of appeal.