RENU SHARMA Vs. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts as stated in the petition are that Chief Education Officer, Jammu-respondent No. 3, vide Advertisement Notice dated 07.01.2010 invited applications for engagement as ReTs in Bhalwal Zone including two positions under Math and Science stream in Middle School Patta Khoo, Baran of the Zone. Amongst others, petitioner also responded to the aforesaid ntoice. Respondents initiated selection process and a panel was prepared by respondent No. 4-Zonal Education Officer, Bhalwal, Jammu for Science and Mathematics streams. The said panel was forwarded to respondent No. 3 for necessary approval, who recommended the same to respondent No. 2 for final approval. After having final approval from the higher authorities, respondent No. 4 vide order No. ZEO/B/4434-40 dated 17.04.2010 issued engagement order in favour of petitioner who joined against the said position. One Ravinder Singh having less merit in the panel approached this Court with SWP No. 1238/2010 wherein present petitioner was arrayed as private respondent, and earned an interim direction of stay qua petitioner's engagement order. Consequently, on directions of this Court, respondent No. 4 withdrew the engagement order of petitioner on 30.07.2010. In the said petition, official respondents as well as petitioner filed detailed objections and this Court after hearing both the sides, vide order dated 07.05.2013 dismissed the said writ petition. Subsequently, petitioner reengaged as ReT and joined on 27.07.2013 in Government Middle School, Patta Khoo.

(2.) The grievance projected by the petitioner is that since she was earlier engaged in the year 2010 but due to pendency of writ petition filed by one Ravinder Singh, which was finally dismissed on 07.05.2013, official respondent cancelled her engagement order in the year 2010, by virtue of which petitioner did not perform her duties. Petitioner has placed on record copy of order dated 10.10.2012 passed in identical matter being SWP No. 2288/2012 titled "Deepak Paul v. State and Ors." in which coordinate Bench of this Court has held that "This petition is disposed of along with connected CMA and the respondents are directed to reckon the service of the petitioner from the date other persons figuring along with the petitioner in the merit/panel of the year 2004 were appointed. Petitioner would be entitled to notional benefits of reckoning of service from the back date and will not be entitled to monetary benefits." It is contended that aforesaid direction was implemented by the respondents in its letter and spirit. Similar direction was also issued in SWP No.1263/2006 titled "Azeem Akhter v. State and Ors." , which was also implemented by the respondents.

(3.) It is contended that for redressal of her grievance, petitioner moved a representation before the respondents for grant of service benefits from 2010, but till date nothing concrete has been done by the respondents on the petitioner's request, which has forced her to file present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to give her service benefits like other selected candidates, since 2010 by passing a speaking order.