SHAZIA RASOOL Vs. STATE OF J & K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 103 of the State Constitution, the petitioner has craved the indulgence of this Court in granting her the following relief(s):

(2.) The facts of the case, put in a nutshell, are that somewhere in the year 2007, applications were invited by Zonal Education Officer, Kulgam from amongst the eligible candidates for making engagement against the post of ReT in Primary School, Tamiloo, Ward No. 7, Kulgam. The petitioner, being fully qualified, accordingly, submitted her application form before the respondents. On account of her non-selection coupled with the engagement of the appointee on the aforesaid post, the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court through the medium of writ petition bearing SWP No. 972/2008. The said writ petition, by order dated 27th of May, 2011, came to be disposed of by this Court directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, alongwith other eligible candidates, for the post of ReT Teacher having regard to all the qualifications to her credit with a further stipulation that in case the petitioner is found meritorious, then, in such eventuality, the selection of the appointee/ respondent No. 5 therein has to be quashed. In compliance of the aforesaid directions of this Court, the claim of the petitioner was considered and she was engaged as ReT by the Zonal Education Officer, Kulgam vide order bearing endorsement No. ZEO/K/1321/11 dated 30th of August, 2011. Subsequently, the petitioner, as stated, was regularized as a General Line Teacher. Thereafter, the petitioner, again, approached this Court with another Writ petition, being SWP No. 2270/2013, for seeking a direction in the name of the respondents to the effect that her appointment be ordered to be reckoned with from the date she was entitled to appointment in the year 2007. This writ petition, too, came to be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. The respondents, in compliance of the directions of this Court, vide order No. 425-DSEK of 2019 dated 9th of April, 2019 have considered and rejected the case of the petitioner for seeking retrospective effect of her appointment. This consideration order dated 9th of April, 2019 has been called in question by the petitioner herein this petition.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter.