MANZOOR AHMAD BANDH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMING to have applied for being appointed as RT in newly created Government School of Banderpora in response to advertisement notice no. 5720 -DSEK of 2003 dated 13.12.03 publicized through concerned Chief Education Officer vide his no. CEO/PUL/SSA/1133 -45 dated 16.02.2004 the petitioner complains that even though submitted in time on 4.3.2004 while the cut of date was 10th March 2004 the concerned ZEO i.e. respondent no. 4 refused to entertain his application on the ground that he was already engaged as educational volunteer in NGS Centre Banderpora, whereupon he presented the application to concerned CEO i.e. respondent no. 3 against receipt no. 9571 dated 4.3.2004 which was marked by him to ZEO concerned with a direction for his enlistment in the panel of candidates, who instead of complying it brought the matter to notice of Director (second respondent) informing him about petitioners prior engagement as educational volunteer and the subsequent receipt of his application as endorsed by CEO on 11th March, 2004, in response whereto Director informed the CEO that the panel once drawn up could not be changed after expiry of the last date for receipt of applications, as result whereof the petitioner was left out of the panel. Aggrieved thereby, he seeks issuance of direction against respondents for his inclusion in the RT panel already prepared aforesaid. Grounds pleaded are that he being the most meritorious candidate available in the locality should have been selected which was not done due to concerned ZEO's refusal to receive his application on the pretext of his having been already engaged as educational volunteer which directly violates his rights.

(2.) IN their reply official respondents 1 to 4 have among other things pleaded that the school in question was sanctioned for concerned village under "Serva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme" (SSAS) and in order to fill up the available vacancy of teachers, applications were sought from eligible candidates by ZEO concerned with last date of receipt of applications fixed as 10.03.2004, and the panel prepared out of candidates who applied before the ZEO in time. In his separate reply the private respondent no. 5 has inter alia maintained that petitioner was rightly left out of consideration because he was already engaged as educational volunteer and had not applied for the post of RT in question before cut of date prescribed for the same. During course of their submissions the learned counsel appearing for parties have reiterated the contents of their pleadings as summarized above.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. The essence of controversy involved in the instant case is, as to whether or not, petitioner did as a matter of fact apply for his engagement against one of the vacancies available in newly created school as aforesaid within the cut of date. While respondents maintain that he did not, the petitioner contends that he did, but concerned ZEO refused acceptance of his application whereafter he approached the CEO who received the same on