MEENAKSHI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Advertisement Notice No. 10 of 2005 dated 29th December 2005, has been issued by J&K Services Selection Board issued, inviting applications from eligible candidates for participating in selection process for various posts. Amongst others, 240 posts of Teachers District Cadre Kathua were also advertised to be filled up in Education Department. 136 posts of Teachers were kept for Open Merit Category (OM); 20 for Scheduled Caste Category (SC); 24 for Scheduled Tribe Category (ST); 48 for Reserved Backward Area Category (RBA); 07 for ALC; 05 for SOC. The minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Teacher was 10+2. Petitioner responded thereto as physically handicapped candidate, having permanent deformity of right eye to the extent of 50%. Shortlist was issued, followed by interview. Thereafter, select List was issued. Petitioner did not find place in the Select List. Aggrieved thereof, he filed writ petition, being SWP no. 1067/2008. This Court vide order dated 10th December 2012, disposed of the same in the following terms:

(2.) Respondents, in pursuance of order dated 10th December 2012 passed in SWP no. 1067/2008, considered and rejected petitioner's case vide Order no. 39-SSB of 2013 dated 12th February 2013. It is this Order, which is challenged in the instant petition whereby seeking following relief:

(3.) Respondents 1&2, in their reply, contend that respondents i.e. School Education Department is intending department. It referred General Line Teacher posts for selection and subsequent appointment, to respondent - J&K Services Selection Board because respondent Board is duly constituted statutory body for the purpose of selection and that respondent Board makes criteria and according to that initiate selection process. They further contend that respondent Board called the candidates, who were eligible for interview as per criteria and since petitioner was found eligible, she was called for interview. Respondents maintain that they are only appointing authority and issue appointment orders only to the candidates duly selected by respondent Board and the present case relates to selection, which can appropriately be replied by respondent Board.