ABIRA HABIB Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy in this case relates to appointment of a teacher under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan in Government School of Kunzer, Tangmarg tehsil, where respondent no. 6 was appointed to the annoyance of petitioner who challenged it on the ground that having 10+2 qualification as against simple matriculation of respondent he had a better claim for appointment in terms of the scheme according to which higher qualification was to prevail as merit and efficiency were the standards of consideration. He, accordingly, seeks quashment of said respondents selection/appointment against the post on the ground that it was done quite arbitrarily and against petitioners merit without even conducting a regular process of selection. In response, official respondents 1 to 5 have, inter alia pleaded that for the post of Educational Volunteer available for being tilled up in the above said Government School, five candidates applied and a panel was drawn wherein petitioner did not find figure because she had not applied at all and among available candidates respondent no. 6 being most eligible was selected and appointed against the job and that being so, petitioner had no case to plead.

(2.) IN view of the nature of claims and counter claims, this Court vide interim order dated 21.02.2005 while admitting the writ petition to hearing observed that official record filed by respondents counsel did not tally with the affidavit purporting to have been filed in the matter by concerned officer directed Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla to examine credentials of the contenders who had eligibility at the relevant point of time and furnish his report which ultimately appears to have been submitted on 1.11.2004 to which none of the parties have filed their written response. Instead the appearing counsel as revealed by interim order dated 16.12.2005, have stated that they did not intend to file any further replies as their pleadings already on record would suffice.

(3.) IN terms of the report purporting to have been filed by Deputy Commissioner concerned, he has expressed dissatisfaction about genuineness of the process of selection that is claimed to have been undertaken by concerned official respondents and has accordingly, concluded the report with an observation that selection in the matter has not been conducted in a transparent manner and statements of Zonal Education Officer regarding preparation of panel were not based on facts which cast doubt on entire selection process. He has also reported that applications of candidates reported to have applied for selection are not traceable from records and has recommended for recommencement of selection process for the reason that appointed candidate in the matter happens to be a matriculate only while as petitioner a 10+2 has not been considered at all. Appended with his report are the affidavits of concerned Chief Education Officer and Zonal Education Officer. In his affidavit, the Chief Education Officer, namely one Gh. Mohammad Malik, has inter -alia submitted that applications for engagement as Education Volunteer in the matter were invited by concerned Zonal Education Officer vide his notification dated 30.01.2003 with concerned village being the zone of selection. He has also deposed that the name of respondent no. 6 only was submitted by concerned Zonal Education Officer to his office for consideration/appointment. On almost similar lines is the affidavit of concerned Zonal Education Officer, namely, Musooda Ashai who, among other things, has stated that Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan scheme did not prescribe any specific procedure for inviting applications and that under the scheme it was not necessary that selected candidate should provide rent free accommodation for the centre as happens to be mentioned in the reply purporting to have been filed on behalf of official respondents 1 to 5. Alongwith all this, perusal of the official file purporting to have been maintained in the matter by concerned officials reveals that as per Zonal Education Officer concerned the post under reference was never advertised as there is no advertisement notice whatever or copy thereof in the file, neither there is any record regarding any such advertisement having been issued by any means whatsoever in absence whereof the claim that it was so issued definitely falls flat for want of requisite substance. In addition to that, the record of selection, if one calls it so, reveals that only respondent no. 6 was empanelled by concerned Zonal Education Officer for appointment as Educational Volunteer alongwith a note that only one candidate, that is perhaps respondent no.6, from revenue village Kunzer applied for the post while others did not as they were residing away from the proposed venue and "were not able to provide accommodation". Following at page no. 9 of the same file is a list of five candidates, namely, Hilal Ahmad Dar, Shaheena Akhter, Firdousa Akhter, Muzaffar Khalid Wani and Arief Rashid Dar. In remarks column, in case of first three candidates the concerned Zonal Education Officer has remarked that they were not willing to work as Educational Volunteers. Regarding one at Sr. No. 4, it has been mentioned that he has already been appointed under SRO 43, with the net result that respondent no. 6 only remained available and willing for being appointed as Educational Volunteer. It would be appropriate to notice that as per their statements purporting to have been given before Deputy Commissioner during course of enquiry aforesaid the above named persons have totally denied having expressed any such disagreement. While Shaheena Akhter has stated that she had applied for the job and never withdrawing from competition was always prepared to work on the job, Muzaffar Khalid, who is reported to have been appointed under SRO 43, has stated that he ever informed the concerned Zonal Education Officer about his appointment which he himself did not know till he applied for the job under reference and, as such, there was no question of his having withdrawing from the candidature. Similarly, the candidates namely Hilal Ahmad Dar and Firdousa Akhter have also stated that they had applied for the job and had qualified 12th Class examination but never withdrawn their names because they were always prepared to work on the job.