TANVEERA AKHTER Vs. STATE OF JK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Education Guarantee Scheme and Alternative and Innovative education was evolved by the Central Government on re-visitation of earlier schemes including Non Formal Education Scheme which had been introduced on pilot basis. In implementation of this scheme, a Centre was decided by the respondents to be established at Gousia Colony, Vessu Anantnag. One EV had to be engaged at the said habitation. The scheme aimed at use of community based micro-planning to assess the need for alternative schooling and also the nature of the problems of out of school children. It had been a component of the scheme that the involvement of the community could be made through the parent's group called school committees, Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs), Mother Teacher Associations (MTAs), Village Education Committees (VEC's) and Panchayats. It was expected that EGS schools would be managed by community based groups personally constituted of parents of the children enrolled at the school/centre. The EV had to be selected by the local community where the school/centre was proposed to be established. In the scheme role of the local Village Education Committee, Panchayat etc. had to be defined by the State. The candidate to be selected had to be at least 18 years of age and a matriculate (passed class X) for primary level school/centre (as decided earlier). The women with lower than class X qualification could be engaged only in very exceptional circumstances where qualified women were not available at all. The EVs, had, preferably, to be of the same habitation or village/panchayat. It was also indicated in the scheme that he/she should preferably belong to the same community as the children who would be enrolled in the school. The school had to be operational for 200 to 225 days in a year and for five hours every day.

(2.) The case emanating from the pleadings is that the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 were the residents of the same place i.e. Gousia Colony, Vessu Anantnag and both possessed 10+2 qualification in the year 2004. Petitioner states that she had obtained 367 marks in 10+2 examination while as respondent No.5 had secured only 302 marks.

(3.) The grievance projected by the petitioner in terms of the petition is that Headmaster of the school at a local place managed the suppression of advertisement notice required to be issued for appointment of EV in EGS Centre, Gousia Colony Vessu Anantnag, in the said place in order to accommodation his daughter. The non-advertisement deprived eligible candidates of the village from applying for engagement. The petitioner was one of such eligible persons who, due to non-advertisement, could not apply. The engagement of respondent No.5 was shown, according to the petitioner, to have been made on the basis of panel framed by respondent No.4 on approval of Selection Committee. The engagement order dated 16.12.2004 issued in favour of respondent No.5 was, as such, according to her, illegal and violative of rights of the petitioner. On knowing the factum of engagement of respondent No.5, the petitioner apprised, as is further set forth in the petition, the Deputy Commissioner concerned by submission of an application and on enquiry which was initiated in the matter, it was found that one of the candidates mentioned in the panel belonged to another village i.e. Checki Rajwali. The application was endorsed to respondent No.3 asking him to initiate enquiry. The respondent ZEO is stated to have submitted a report to respondent No.3 that he visited the village and prepared the panel on spot. It was also stated therein that the mother-in-law of the present petitioner was present at the venue where she supported the selection of respondent No.5. This assertion, according to the petitioner, was wrong as otherwise too she had not a cordial relation with her mother-in-law. Name of Bilal Ahmad reflected in the panel was done deliberately to give a march to the respondent No.5 as the former i.e. Bilal Ahmad did not belong to the said village. The respondent ZEO is stated to have thereafter issued a corrigendum that the engagement of respondent No.5 would be held up till further verification as per directions of respondent No. A writ petition (SWP No.15/2005) was filed by respondent No.5 in which the said corrigendum issued by respondent ZEO keeping engagement order of respondent No.5 on hold, was stayed. The petitioner herein had not been joined as party to the said writ petition. On legal advice, she filed an application for impleadment which was dismissed by the Court with liberty to her to file a separate writ petition. It is also stated that the respondent No.5 had procured her admission in B.Com 3rd year in Government Degree College, Anantnag in sessions 2006 where she has also marked her attendance as a regular candidate. This, according to the petitioner, strengthened the plea taken by her that the appointment of respondent No.5 was made fraudulently and is a manipulation. The petitioner is also relying on a communication of respondent ZEO in this petition, which, according to her, suggests that there was not advertisement for said post of EV. The document referred as panel, prepared by Village Education Committee, is stated to be not so as the persons who have signed that were not the member of Village Education Committee. It is also being pleaded that the petitioner had been working as an Anganwadi Worker but that could not come in her way for being considered for appointment as EV/ReT. Accordingly, she has sought relief for grant of Writ of Certiorari etc. for quashing the order of engagement issued in favour of respondent No.5.