AJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF J & K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide advertisement notification No. DIP/J-6844 dtd. 5/2/2009, the respondent No. 2 invited applications for engagement of Rehbar-e- Taleem under SSA for the year 2008-09.

(2.) The official respondents in their objections have contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that respondent No. 3 on the recommendation of the Village Education Committee, prepared a panel for Science and Mathematics posts which were created due to up-gradation of UPS, Kangwala under SSA norms. Sh. Shinder Paul, who in view of his merit was figuring at serial No.1 was appointed as Mathematics teacher whereas the candidate at serial No.2, Pooja Rani, who was 10+2 in Physics, Chemistry and Biology with 62.2% marks was empanelled for the post of Science Teacher. It is further stated that two candidates, namely, Sunita Devi who was having 10+2 with Physics, Chemistry and Biology with 45.66% marks and Ajay Kumar, who was 10+2 with Physics, Chemistry and Math with 43.16% marks, were placed at serial Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. It is claimed that the select panel was displayed in the revenue village Kangwala w.e.f 7/10/2011 to 13/10/2011. It is, thus, submitted that since for the post of Math stream, Shinder Paul, BA with Math possessing 46.96 % marks was found to be the most meritorious and having more merit that the petitioner, was selected as Math teacher, whereas, with the withdrawal of candidature by candidate figuring at serial No. 2, Pooja Devi, respondent No. 4 being next in merit in Science stream, was empanelled for the second post.

(3.) Respondent No. 4 has also filed her separate objections in which the allegation of the petitioner that respondent No. 4 was married ouside the village since the year 2008, was specifically refuted. It was specifically pleaded by respondent No. 4 that she got married on 20/5/2009, whereas the last date for submission of application forms was 26/2/2009. The locus of the petitioner to assail the empanelment of respondent No. 4 in the Science stream has also been challenged by respondent No. 4 on the ground that the petitioner belongs to Mathematics stream.