JYOTI SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide Advertisement Notice dated 20.01.2010 read with Corrigendum dated 26.02.2010, the respondent No.3 invited applications for engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem teachers for different schools in different Education Zones. The posts notified for selection included two posts of ReTs for Primary School Patyari falling in Education Zone Vijaypur. Apart from other terms and conditions, the Condition No.5 provided that the candidate to be appointed should be actually and physically residing in the village where the appointment of the Rehbar-e-Taleem is to be made. The petitioner claims that since at the time of issuance of the advertisement notification, she was actually and physically residing in village Patyari and was otherwise eligible on all counts, as such she applied for the post along with six more candidates, including respondent No.6. A Tentative panel on merit of the candidates was prepared by the Zonal Education Officer concerned. The petitioner was placed at Serial No.1, whereas the respondent No.6 was placed at Serial No.4. On the basis of the aforesaid merit, a tentative select panel consisting of two candidates only was issued by the respondents and displayed in village Patyari for seven days w.e.f. 22.06.2010 for general information of the public of the area and for calling the objections, if any, from the aggrieved candidates. It is submitted that the respondent No.6 objected to the inclusion of the petitioner"?s name in the select panel displayed by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner was not resident of village Patyari. It is claimed that respondent No.6, after realizing that the objection by him was without any substance and baseless, on his own withdrew his objection by filing an application supported by an affidavit. Since there was no objection to the empanelment of the petitioner, the panel was submitted by the Zonal Education Officer concerned to the respondent No.2 for approval. The respondent No.2, after completing the requisite formalities, approved the panel, vide his communication No.DSEJ/R-e-T/6684 dated 23.08.2010, as a result whereof, the petitioner was engaged as Rebhar-e-Taleem in the Primary School Patyari. She claims that she joined on the post in September 2010 and, ever since, she is continuously working in the school, which is operating from her house. The respondent No.6, after a gap of about two years, challenged the selection of the petitioner in SWP No.765/2012, which was disposed of by a Single Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 04.06.2014, and a direction was issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Samba to conduct fresh inquiry with regard to actual and exact residence of the petitioner herein within a period of one month. The Deputy Commissioner was also directed to afford an opportunity of being heard to both the parties and permit them to produce documentary evidence, if any, in respect of their claims. The Court further directed that the competent authority in the Education Department shall pass appropriate orders on the basis of report to be submitted to it by the Deputy Commissioner, Samba after conducting the enquiry. The Deputy Commissioner, Samba, it is claimed, did not conduct the inquiry himself, as directed, but got the same conducted through the respondent No.5, i.e. Additional Deputy Commissioner, Samba, in which the latter concluded that the petitioner Jyoti Sharma was not residing in village Patyari prior to 2010, when the post of ReT was advertised for the said village. It is this report of the ADC, Samba, which is assailed by the petitioner in this petition. This court vide its order dated 19.02.2015, while issuing notice to the respondents after admission of the petition, also directed the maintenance of status quo. The petitioner claims that the petitioner has been in continuous service ever since her appointment and has now completed almost nine years.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the report of the ADC, Samba, inter alia, on the ground, that ADC, Samba, had no jurisdiction to conduct any enquiry, as the direction of the Court was to the Deputy Commissioner to hold the enquiry himself. The report of the enquiry has further been challenged, on the ground, that ADC, Samba, who conducted the enquiry did not consider the relevant material before coming to his conclusions. He mainly relied upon the documentary evidence but did not visit the spot and examine the locals of the area. The fact that the petitioner, after her marriage in village Patyari w.e.f. 30.11.2007, has been actually and physically residing in the village and the house, where the school is operating, belongs to the petitioner have not been taken into consideration by the respondent No.5. The ADC Samba, deliberately omitted to consider the report of the Patwari dated 11.02.2001, ration cards for the year 2005, 2010 and 2012, voter ID card of the petitioner and Chowkidara receipts w.e.f. 2001 till the date of enquiry and, therefore, landed into returning an erroneous finding that petitioner at the time of appointment was not actually and physically residing in the village concerned.

(3.) The respondents No.1 to 5 have not filed their objections. However, reply affidavit has been filed by respondent No.6, who, in his reply, has supported the report of ADC, Samba, impugned in the petition. It is claimed that ADC, Samba, conducted the enquiry after associating both the petitioner and the respondent No.6 in the enquiry. Both were given ample opportunity to produce their documentary evidence and the documentary evidence produced by them were evaluated by the ADC, Samba, who after threadbare discussion on all aspects and taking into consideration the material brought before him, arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner, at the time of issuance of advertisement notification, was not actually and physically residing in village Patyari and, therefore, had no claim for the post, against which, she had been appointed/engaged.