MOHD. ASDULLAH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner in response to the advertisement for appointment as RET Teacher, applied against the available vacancies at Middle School Kanari Education Zone Mandi District Poonch and thereafter merit panel of the candidate was prepared wherein the petitioner was figuring at serial No. 1 and the selection process was initiated and approval was granted by the respondent No. 2 on dated 30.01.2004. Thus, the petitioner came to be appointed, as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher vide order No. 629-32 dated 05.08.2004, as issued by the respondents in order dated 24.08.2005. The petitioner is 10+2 qualified. It is further stated in the petition that petitioner was appointed as RET Teacher against the available vacancy and he performed his duties with dedication and devotion for the betterment of the children. Petitioner despite have worked with effect from 05.08.2004 till date but no salary has been paid to the petitioner from that date. That the recommendations made in favour of the petitioner by the Sarpanch Panchayat Halqa Chhamber Kanari and also Headmaster Government Middle School Chhamber. It is further stated that the petitioner has been appointed by the competent authority under law and is performing his duties with honesty and dedication despite the facts that he is disabled due to an accident caused by land slides. The petitioner is disabled of his two legs and despite disability he is performing his duties punctually and regularly.

(2.) This Court vide order dated 28.08.2006 issued notice to the respondents.

(3.) The action of the respondent is arbitrary and is challenged on the following grounds. a. That the approval was granted by the respondent No. 2 for appointment of the petitioner on 30.01.2004 and as such thereafter, necessary appointment was required to be issued by the appointing authority but no such order was issued and petitioner was asked to work in the office of the respondent No. 4. The petitioner as such worked in the office of respondent No. 4 and on one pretext or other, the issuance of the appointment was delayed by the respondents.