PRITI GUPTA AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE this SWP and Contempt Petition No. 260/2013 pertain to common matter, these are taken together for disposal. The case of the petitioner as per the averments made in the petition is that vide Advertisement Notice No. 07 of 2010 dated 12.11.2010, the applications were invited by the State -respondents for different posts including the posts of Teachers (Education Department) against Item No. 697, Cadre Kathua. The petitioner also being eligible, applied against RBA category. After interview she came to be selected and her name figured at S. No. 36 under RBA category in the Provisional Select List of Teachers, District Cadre Kathua, but was not allowed to join on the ground that she was not holding a valid RBA certificate at the time of joining, i.e., 30.04.2013. It is further contended that RBA certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner on 02.02.2008, which was valid for a period of five years, i.e., upto 02.02.2013. It is further contended that the said certificate was valid on the date when the petitioner applied for the post of Teacher and even at the time when she was selected, but the appointment order was issued after some time, which was not fault of the petitioner. The petitioner being a lady had to get married, therefore, RBA certificate could not be renewed. Otherwise also, there was no legal requirement for renewal of RBA certificate once the petitioner was in possession of valid RBA certificate on the date when eligibility of the petitioner was to be reckoned. It further averred that respondent No. 3 vide impugned communication No. CEOK/3052 -53 dated 15.04.2013 addressed to respondent No. 4 with reference to appointment order dated 10.04.2013 of petitioner had directed respondent No. 4 that petitioner be not allowed to join under Order dated 10.04.2013 without production of valid certificate (RBA). Hence, this writ petition seeking following relief to: -

(2.) THIS petition came up for consideration before the Court on 14.05.2013 and this Court was pleased to stay the communication No. CEOK/3052 -53 dated 15.04.2013. Order of the Court dated 14.05.2013 was served upon the respondents, but despite that petitioner was not allowed to join. Being aggrieved, she filed contempt petition bearing COA(S) No. 260/2013. Respondents have filed objections to the main petition as well as statement of facts to the contempt petition on 29.07.2013. It is relevant to notice Paragraph No. 4 of the preliminary objections filed to writ petition as under: -

(3.) IN the statement of facts filed in the contempt petition, the respondents have reiterated the stand taken in the objections filed to the main writ petition.