NUSRAT JAN Vs. STATE OF J&K & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeal are preferred by one and the same appellant challenging the common order made in SWP Nos. 1652/2004 and 982/2004, dated 28.03.2012. In Writ Petition No. 982/2004 the 7th respondent sought quashing of order of appointment issued in favour of 6th respondent issued on 28.01.2004 and also prayed to quash the 3rd panel dated 09.03.2004 prepared by the 4th respondent and that directions be issued for appointment/engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem in favour of the 7th respondent. In writ petition No. 1652/2004 the 7th respondent in these appeals challenged the engagement of the appellant in these appeals as Rehbar-e-Taleem in Primary School Wagaypora, Pombay issued by order dated 06.12.2004. The appointment of the 6th respondent which was challenged in SWP No.982/2004 was not quashed and the 3rd panel dated 09.03.2004 wherein the appellant was placed at serial No. 1 and was also appointed, was quashed with a direction to the official respondents to appoint the 7th respondent as 2nd Rehbabr-e-Taleem in Primary School, Wagaypora, Pombay. As against the dismissal of the writ petition No. 982/2004 upholding the engagement of the 6th respondent, the 7th respondent has not preferred any appeal and the appellant alone filed these appeals and challenged the common order.

(2.) The case of the 7th respondent before the writ Court was that the State Government by order dated 30.11.2002 sanctioned two Rehbar-e-Taleem posts in primary school Wagaypora, Pombay, Education Zone, H.C. Gam under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme. The Zonal Education Officer without notifying the vacancies in the newly sanctioned school prepared a panel on 29.10.2003 comprising of a single candidate namely 6th respondent, who was having 10+2 qualification with 257 marks out of 600 marks for one vacancy and the officer also informed the higher ups in the department that no other candidate was eligible for the available second vacancy.

(3.) The 7th respondent having came to know about the availability of one vacancy approached the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag on 17.02.2004 with an application, who in turn directed the Zonal Education Officer to submit a panel of eligible candidates of the village for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem against the second vacancy available in the school and furnish the same to the Chief Education Officer of the District. According to the 7th respondent, the Village Level Committee in its meeting held on 20.02.2004 prepared a panel comprising of the 7th respondent alone as no other candidate with requisite qualification was available in the village and the Chief Education Officer was requested to consider the engagement of the 7th respondent in terms of the panel. The appellant also submitted her application on 20.02.2004 for appointment in the second vacancy. A fresh panel was prepared comprising the appellant as No. 1 and 7th respondent as No. 2 based on the marks possessed by the appellant and the 7th respondent in 10+2. The said panel dated 09.03.2004 was challenged by contending that on the date when the posts were sanctioned that was on 30.11.2002 and the date of preparation of the first panel dated 29.10.2003, the appellant was not possessing 10+2 qualification and the appellant possessed the 10+2 qualification only on 20.02.2004, therefore, the 7th respondent in the writ petition ought not to have been empanelled and appointed. The Writ Court accepted the plea of the 7th respondent and quashed the panel dated 09.03.2004 and set side the selection of the appellant. Having aggrieved over the same the appellant preferred these appeals contending that even though two vacancies were available as per Government order dated 30.11.2002 under SSA scheme in the primary school, Wagaypora, Pombay, education zone H.C. Gam, no advertisement was issued and only 6th respondent managed to apply and got selected and when the appellant came to know about availability of the 2nd vacancy, she applied for the second vacancy on 20.02.2004 and the said application along with the application submitted by the 7th respondent on 17.02.2004 were considered and based on the marks secured by the appellant she was selected and appointed and the order of the Writ Court quashing the panel as well as consequential appointment is illegal as the writ petitioner namely the 7th respondent has not applied based on the notification inviting applications and she applied like that of the appellant though three days prior to the submission of application by the appellant and the 7th respondent, who has no right to be selected as a matter of right, has no locus standi to challenge the panel dated 09.03.2004 and the consequential selection and appointment of the appellant.