SUNITA RAJPUT Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LETTERS Patent Appeal on hand is directed against the writ Court Judgment dated 13th December, 2010 in SWP No. 351/2006, whereby writ petition has been dismissed and a candidate though actually not residing in the village, held eligible to be engaged as ReT under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) Scheme. The Appeal arises against the following backdrop. Director School Education vide advertisement notice No. DSEJ/ReT/4811 -17 dated 29th June, 2004, invited applications from the eligible candidates amongst others for the position of ReT in Middle School Babliana. Block Satwari. Sunita Rajput (hereinafter referred to as appellant in LPA(SW) No. 183/2010) and Renu Manhas (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 5, in LPA(SW) No. 183, 2010) were amongst the candidates who responded to the advertisement notice. However, the appellant did not find place in the selection list and was not engaged against the advertised position. The respondents 1 to 4 instead selected/engaged, respondent No. 5 against the said post.

(2.) THE appellant questioned selection and engagement of respondent No. 5, as ReT in the aforesaid School, primarily on the ground that respondent No. 5, as also other candidates shown ahead of the appellant in the panel were not residents of village Babliana and therefore, were not eligible for the advertised position. It was pleaded that respondent No. 5 was married outside village and her candidature was also opposed by Village Level Committee. The appellant in the said background sought writ of certiorari quashing selection and engagement of respondent No. 5 as also writ of mandamus commanding official respondents to engage appellant against the aforesaid position.

(3.) THE writ Court placing reliance on Judgments rendered in Javid Iqbal Lone v. State of J.& K. in LPA (SWP) 94/2005 decided on 3rd October, 2005, Ranjat Sharma v. State and Ors. in SWP No. 2014/2003 decided on 6th September, 2004, Dharamveer Singh v. State in SWP No. 363/2001 (reported in : 2004 Lab IC 825), Gurdial Sharma v. State in LPA No. 131/2005 decided on 22nd December, 2006, held that a candidate from a village does not lose his right to be considered for ReT position, available in local School, merely on the ground that such candidate does not actually reside in the village. Writ Court further held that the lady married outside the village would not be deprived of her right to be considered for ReT position available in the School of the village to which she belongs i.e. where she resided before her marriage.