MUKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE of the petitioner is that he donated half of his proprietary land measuring 1 Kanal and 10 Marlas covered under Survey No. 262 situated at village Inherra Tehsil Gandoh District, Doda for construction of School building some 15/16 years back. In lieu thereof he was assured to be appointed as Class IV employee in the said School under SRO 181 of 1988, but till date he has not been appointed/engaged as Class IV employee, despite recommendation made by respondents 3 and 4, hence the petition.

(2.) IT is admitted position that the petitioner had offered half of his proprietary land for the construction of the School building at village Inherra Tehsil Gandoh District Doda, has not received any compensation for the said land, but was waiting for being appointed as Class IV employee in the said School. In presence of respondent No. 4 villagers of the village concerned resolved that the land identified for construction of School building being proprietary land of Gian Chand father of the petitioner is required to be donated by said Gian Chand, in lieu thereof he has been assured the post of Chowkidar (Class IV) to be provided to his son (petitioner). Respondent No. 4 Head Master has also recommended to the District Development Commissioner, Doda for appointment of the petitioner as Class IV employee in lieu of the land donated for construction of the school building. In addition respondent No. 4 Head Master has also recommended the case of the petitioner for being appointed to the post of Chowkidar as lying vacant in the said school. The Chief Education Officer, Doda has also been asked by his higher authorities to look into the matter personally and try to accommodate the petitioner as Class IV employee in lieu of the land donated by the petitioner for construction of the School building.

(3.) PETITIONER earlier filed SWP No. 534/2002, which came to be disposed of on 02.03.2002 with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the decision rendered in LPA 309 of 1996. On consideration respondent No.2 Director School Education, after according construction to the case of the petitioner has concluded that at the time land was donated SRO 181 of 1988 was in vogue, but till issuance of subsequent Notification vide SRO 214 of 1991, petitioner was not appointed. SRO 214 provides for specific bar of making fresh appointment. On the said analogy the case of the petitioner for appointment has been rejected.