RINKU DEVI Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks quashing of Government Order No.394-Edu of 2006 dated 28.07.2006 by virtue of which the words 'belong' & 'local candidate' mentioned in the R-e-T Scheme have been explained to mean 'a person actually residing in the village at the time of appointment' on account of the same being ultra vires of the constitution and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner in particular and female candidates in general as the same created discrimination on the basis of sex; with a further prayer for quashing of the selection and proposed engagement of private respondents in the panel prepared by the official respondents for their engagement under R-e-T scheme. Prayer has also been made for the issuance of directions to official respondents to select and appoint the petitioner to the post of R-e-T teacher pursuant to Advertisement Notification No.CEO/RET/4823-27 dated 15.05.2012 and DIP/JK-1048/2012.

(2.) Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that vide Advertisement Notification No.CEO/RET/4823-27 dated 15.05.2012 and DIP/JK-1048/2012 (Annexure-B), vacancies were advertised under the R-e-T Scheme for different zones including the one in Zone Assar at UPS Marsoo. As per the advertisement Annexure B, minimum qualification prescribed were 10+2 with Math or Science background from recognized Board/University.

(3.) That as per averments in the Writ Petition, the petitioner being 10+2 in Science with Biology as one of the subjects, applied in response to the notification on account of fulfilling the eligibility conditions/ criteria under the afore said notification. It is further averred that in response to the advertisement Annexure B, the respondents received applications from eligible candidates including the petitioner and ultimately tentative select list was prepared by the official respondents wherein the names of the private respondents appeared along with one Gita Devi, who is stated to have given up her claim for engagement, while the petitioner was placed at serial No.4 in the list of candidates having applied pursuant to the advertisement. Petitioner was not aware about the issuance of aforesaid tentative list as well as the final list prepared by the official respondents and received copy of the select list prepared by the official respondents only under the Right to Information Act vide Annexure-E.