GH MOHD DAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMING to have sought candidature for selection as Rehbar -i -Taleem against a vacancy available in Boys Middle School, Waripora Tehsil Handwara, the petitioner maintains that even though fully eligible he was not considered for the job and instead respondent No. 5 who was lesser in merit than him was empanelled. Aggrieved thereby he seeks a direction against respondents to accept his candidature for the aforesaid post, and also to prohibit them from preparing a final panel in the matter.

(2.) IN their reply the official respondents 1 to 4 have among other things pleaded that two posts of Rehbar -i -Taleem available in aforementioned school were advertised for inviting applications but in response only four applications were received within the cut off date i.e. 31 -08 -2004 and the applicants accordingly empanelled, while petitioner approached the concerned ZEO alongwith his application on 2.9.2004 when his application could not be entertained and accordingly he could not be considered for empanelment. In his separate memo of objections private respondent No. 5 has pleaded that he, like others empanelled, applied for the post well in time and being at S.No. 3 of the panel had bright prospect of being appointed because the candidate at S.No. 2 had not furnished requisite documents alongwith his application. During course of submissions learned counsel appearing for parties have reiterated the contents of their respective pleadings.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. Perusal of the official file pertaining to selection as furnished by the respondents counsel even though containing the advertisement notice in original does not have anything to suggest that the posts were duly advertised in the concerned area as they should have been for giving vast publicity to attract all the eligible candidates. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that any exercise whatsoever for publicizing the availability of posts and inviting applications has been undertaken by the concerned officials even though as per typed foot note no. 5 to the officially prepared panel wide publicity has been given. The footnote as a matter of fact appears to be a part of the printed format meant for preparation of panels of selected candidates and appears to be there as a matters of routine, but for want of any supporting material, devoid of substance. In absence of anything reliable to suggest that the posts available for being filled up were duly advertised, the selection appears to have been faulty, right at the take off print due to which all the subsequent developments lack in legitimacy.