PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions are inter- connected and pertain to the selection and engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem in UPS Marhuine zone Billawar, though filed at different stages of selection and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The facts as projected in SWP No. 1622/2014 may be noticed. Vide Advertisement Notification No. CEOK/ReT/19321-29 dated 19.2013 issued by respondent No.3 applications were invited for engagement of Rehbar-e- Taleems under SSA in Upgraded Primary Schools of district Kathua. The notification inter alia pertained to selection of Rehbar-e- Taleems for three posts, one each for Math/Science, Social Science and language Urdu/Hindi in UPS Marhuine. As is apparent from the Advertisement Notification, applications were invited at village level in case of rural area and on ward-wise basis in the urban area of TAC/NAC. It is stated by the petitioner that he was the only candidate in the village /ward level who had applied for Hindi stream before the cut off date in conformity with the terms and conditions of the Advertisement Notification. The petitioner also claims that he sought his consideration under reserved category of scheduled caste . The petitioner also states that his house is situated about 500 yards away from the school in question and that both his residence and the school fall in Ward No. 3 Municipal Committee, Billawar. It is also pleaded in the writ petition that though the petitioner had submitted his application form against proper receipt but the same was not entertained and returned back to the petitioner. It is also alleged that at one point of time, the respondents even decided to extend the zone of consideration to the zonal level so as to include the names of ineligible persons which was prevented by timely intervention of this Court in SWP No. 868/2014 filed by the petitioner, throwing challenge to the action of the respondents in extending the zone of consideration . The petitioner further pleads that while the aforesaid writ petition was pending, the respondent No. 2 published notification on 4.6.2014 indicating therein the tentative selection of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 as ReTs in the school in question. For the subject of Hindi, respondent No. 7 was indicated as selected candidate.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the Notification of respondent No.2 dated 4.6.2014, the petitioner had filed the instant writ petition. It may be noted that on first date of hearing, this Court vide its order dated 16.2014, restrained the respondents from issuing select list to the extent of respondent No.7. There was, however, no stay against the selection of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. It is because of this reason, perhaps the petitioner did not take steps for the service of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Because of failure on part of petitioner to take steps for service of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, this writ petition shall be deemed to have dismissed against the aforesaid respondents and they shall be deemed to have been deleted from the array of respondents.