BRAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE THROUGH EDUCATION DEPTT.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An Advertisement Notification for engagement of RET in various upgraded Primary School in District Kishtwar was issued by the respondent No.3 vide his No. CEO/J/A/SSA/2009-375-77 dated 11.02.2009. In the Advertisement Notification, two posts, one each in Science and Mathematics stream, were notified to be filled up in the upgraded Primary School, Machna of Education Zone Marwah and two posts, one each for Science and Mathematics stream were notified for upgraded Primary School, Nebber of Education Zone, Marwah. The petitioner, as is claimed by him, being eligible in terms of the Advertisement Notification submitted his application form duly recommended by the Village Level Education Committee for his engagement against the post of RET in medical stream for UPS Machna. The UPS, Machna, it is stated, falls in Revenue Village, Deharna of Panchayat Deharna. The respondent No.4 prepared a merit panel in which the petitioner was placed at S.No.2 on the basis of his merit. The respondent No.6 a resident of village Yourdu, Panchayat Yourdu was empanelled in the merit panel of UPS Machna and was placed at S.No.1. It is claimed that respondent No.6, who is a resident of Revenue Village Yourdu was also empanelled for UPS Nebber which falls in the Revenue Village Yourdu/Panchayat Yourdu. It is the allegations of the petitioners that the respondent No.5, a Dealing Assistant in the office of the respondent No.4, with a view to get his son-respondent No.7 engaged in UPS Nebber managed to prepare the panel of UPS Machna at the zonal level on the ground that there was no eligible candidate available in the Revenue Village Deharna. It is pointed out by the petitioner that the respondent No.6, who was at S.No.1 in the panel prepared for UPS Nebber, was not engaged in the said School, but, his candidature was considered for UPS Machna for which the merit panel was prepared at the zonal level. It is, thus, claimed that the respondent No.5 by shifting the respondent No.6 to UPS Machna facilitated engagement of respondent No.7, who is none other than son of respondent No.5, in UPS Nebber. The short grievance projected by the petitioner in this petition is that had the respondent No.6 been considered and engaged as RET (medical stream) in UPS Nebber, the petitioner with highest merit in the zone would have been engaged as RET (medical stream) in UPS Machna. The petitioner claims that feeling aggrieved by manipulation done by the respondent No.5, the petitioner made several representations to the respondents, which were followed by legal notice, but, the respondents turned a deaf ear to the grievance of the petitioner. Having failed to get his grievance redressed by the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court through the medium of instant petition. The petitioner challenges the engagement of respondent No.6 in UPS Machna and that of respondent No.7 in UPS Nebber on the ground that their engagement besides being illegal and arbitrary is an outcome of manipulation made by the respondent No.5 for engagement of his son-respondent No.7. It is, thus, claimed that as per the terms and conditions of the Advertisement Notification and object of RET scheme, respondent No.6, a resident of village Yourdu where UPS Nebber is situated, was entitled to be engaged as RET (medical stream) in UPS Nebber as he was a candidate belonging to the village with highest merit and rest of the candidates, who had applied for the post of RET (medical stream) at the zonal level for UPS Machna were required to be considered on the basis of their inter-se merit. It is, thus, urged that since, after respondent No.6, it was the petitioner, who had the highest merit in the zone, as such, he was a candidate, who should have been engaged for UPS Machna.

(2.) The respondents have filed the objections and resisted the writ petition. The selection of respondents No. 6 and 7 as RET in UPS Machna and Nebber is sought to be justified. In the reply, the respondents 1 to 4 state that after receiving the application forms for UPS Machna, the respondent No.4 prepared a tentative panel at zonal level as per the Government Order No.1639 of 2003 dated 12.11.2000 for the reasons that in the Revenue Village/Panchayat Deharna where UPS Machna is located, there was no local candidate available in the said stream. The respondent No.6, who had applied for the aforesaid post, was considered along with others, and on the basis of merit prepared at zonal level, he was placed on the top of the panel. It is on account of his merit, the respondent No.6 was engaged as RET (medical stream) for UPS Machna. It is further stated by the respondents that so far as respondent No.7 is concerned, he being a resident of village Yourdu had applied for RET (medical stream) in UPS Nebber, which is admittedly located in village Yourdu. He being the only candidate available in village was, thus, selected and engaged as RET medical stream UPS Nebber. This is, in nutshell, the stand taken by the official respondents in their reply affidavit.

(3.) The respondent No.5 against whom the petitioner has made specific allegation that he managed the whole selection so as to confer wrongful benefit upon his son, respondent No.7, too has filed his separate reply affidavit. The respondent No.5 in his reply claims that he is serving in the Education Department as general line teacher, but, during the year 2009, the respondent No.4 had deployed him in his office for doing official work where he continued till December, 2011. He, however, submits that he was neither member of the Village Level Education Committee for UPS Machna/Deharana nor UPS Nebber, Panchayat Yourdu or any other School in Marwah zone. He further asserts that he was in no manner associated with the selection and engagement of RETs in the Education Zone Marwah. The respondent No.5 also refers to the inquiry report dated 23.06.2010 and 06.07.2010 submitted by the respondent No.4 to the respondent No.3, which was conducted on the complaint of respondent No.3 against the selection panel of UPS Nebber. It is stated that in the inquiry that was conducted by the respondent No.4 under the directions of the respondent No.2, the allegations leveled by respondent No.6 were not substantiated. It is, thus, submitted that since the respondent No.6 had applied for engagement as RET only for UPS Machana and, as such, his candidature was, accordingly, considered. The respondent No.5 denies that the respondent No.6 had actually applied for UPS Nebber as is claimed by the petitioner. The respondent No.5, however, does not deny his relationship with respondent No.7.