HILAL AHMAD BHAT Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two posts of Rehbar-i-Taleem (ReTs) with mathematics and science background, became available in the upgraded Primary School, Gund Mam Dar, Beeru, Badgam. In order to supply the vacancies, Advertisement Notification was issued by the official respondents inviting applications from the residents of revenue village Gund Mam Dar. The minimum prescribed qualification was 10+2 with mathematics and science background. The writ petitioner appellant herein as also the private respondent No.5. responded to the said Notification. Respondent No.5 was selected for being appointed on the post of ReT with science background as he was possessed of 10+2 and was also a graduate. The appellant challenged the selection of the respondent No.5 by medium of SWP 281/2011, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide its judgement dated 06- 11-2012 on the premise that respondent No.5, besides having eligibility qualification of 10+2 was a science graduate, thus, possessed of superior merit than that of the appellant, who was only having qualification of 10+2. It is this judgement, which is called in question in this LPA.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is, admittedly, possessed of superior merit at 10+2 level than that of the private respondent. He submitted that the private respondent is an Arts graduate and not a Science graduate. Learned counsel further submitted that since the vacancy to be supplied was subject specific, viz. the candidate was required to have academic qualification in science subjects and since the respondent No.5 was not a science graduate and in view of the superior merit of the appellant at 10+2 level, it was he (appellant), who was to be selected/engaged as ReT. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned judgement deserves to be set aside and the writ petition requires to be allowed.

(3.) Mr. Naik, learned AAG, appearing for official respondents, submitted that the private respondent is not a Science graduate but an Arts graduate. He also admitted that the appellant is possessed of more merit than the private respondent at 10+2 level. He submitted further that on a mistaken notion, the writ Court was informed that the private respondent is a Science graduate and it is for this reason that the writ petition has been dismissed. Learned counsel submitted that it has been the consistent view taken by this Court that when a post required to be filled up is subject specific, then the higher qualification has to be in the same subject and higher qualification in any other subject will not be considered. Learned counsel, accordingly, supported the claim of the appellant writ petitioner.