ONKAR SINGH Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was selected by the Subordinate Services Recruitment Board (SSRB) for appointment to the post of teacher in Poonch district vide selection list dated 21.11.1995. He claims that he thereafter approached the Distt. Education Officer (DEO), Poonch, who directed him to report to the Zonal Education Officer (ZEO). He further asserts that he reported in the ZEO's office on 5.12.1995 and ever since has been attending that office but he was neither being allowed to work as a teacher nor paid any salary till date. He also submits that in the meanwhile, he was detailed for examination duty and then election duty in the Kashmir valley and in support has placed certificates on record. He accordingly prays for a direction to the respondents to release his salary from 4.12.1995, the date when he reported to respondent No. 2.

(2.) Respondents have filed objections admitting that the petitioner figured at S. No. 124 of the select list of the SSRB and pursuant thereto he reported before respondent No. 2 who by order dated 4.12.1995 directed all selected candidates including the petitioner to report to the ZEO concerned who had to examine their credentials. The candidates were told that formal order of appointment/adjustment would be passed by respondent No. 2 after verification of the certificates and on the satisfaction of the appointing authority regarding the candidate's character and antecedents in terms of Rule 17(d) of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 (1956 Rules) and the J&K Civil Services (Verification of Character and Antecedents) Instructions of 1969 sanctioned vide Government Order No. Home-559-IS of 1969 dated 18.9.1969 which empowered an appointing authority to satisfy himself about the character and antecedents of a candidate before making his appointment.

(3.) In this context it is pointed out that after the petitioner's case was referred for such verification, ''law enforcing agency'' intimated that he was involved in FIRs No. 233/90, 97/91, 99/91, 49/93 and 15/95 for offences under Sections 148, 149, 353 and 336 RPC and that the challans in respect of these FIRs were pending in the court and in one of the cases, a fine of Rs. 50 was imposed on him. It is accordingly projected that the verification of the character and antecedents of the petitioner did not qualify him for appointment to the post of teacher and accordingly the appointing authority did not issue any appointment order to him.