TASLIMA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition, as narrated by the petitioner in this petition, are that vide Advertisement Notice No.1703-05 dated 12.01.2004, the applications for various posts of ReT available in different schools were notified for selection. The posts of ReTs notified included three posts in Government Middle School, Gangota and one post in Government Primary School, Akhrie both falling in revenue village Alni Gangota, Tehsil Bhalessa. The petitioner claims that she responded to the aforesaid notification and staked her claim against the aforesaid post lying vacant in the twin schools situated in revenue village Alni. The respondents prepared a panel of 16 candidates in the order of merit. The petitioner was placed at Serial No.9 of the said panel, which was prepared for the revenue village Alni Gangota. It is further submitted that another notification was issued by the Zonal Education Officer, Bhalessa on 9.07.2004, whereby three posts of Rehbar-e-Taleem teachers in Middle School Alni and two posts in New Primary School Bonecha in the revenue village Alni Gangota were notified for selection .The petitioner claims that she responded to this advertisement notice as well and the panel of 18 candidates was prepared for the aforesaid schools in which the petitioner was placed at Serial No.9. It is claimed that petitioner and six other candidates challenged both the panels aforesaid in SWP No.1827/2004, which was allowed by Single Bench of this Court on 31.12.2012. The panel of selection prepared by the respondents was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Chief Education Officer, Doda to examine the petitioners' and respondents' claims on their entitlement to selection and engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem keeping in view the report of the Deputy Commissioner as also the material that the petitioners and the respondents may additionally produce before him to substantiate their respective claims. This exercise was directed to be completed within a period of four months. It appears that in compliance to the judgment of the Single Bench dated 31.12.2012, a fresh select panel of four candidates, including the petitioner in respect of posts lying vacant in the High School Gangota (earlier Middle School) in pursuance of advertisement notification dated 12.01.2004, has been prepared. The panel drawn afresh placed the petitioner at serial No.2 in the order of merit. The panel aforesaid underwent through different processes and, ultimately, got the approval from the respondent No.2. Consequently, the petitioner was appointed as Rehbari-e-Taleem in Government High School Gangota vide ZEO's order No.ZEO/ReT/1667-69 dated 26.09.2014. The grievance of the petitioner is that although SWP No.1827/2004 was decided by this court on 31.12.2012, yet the respondents took almost one and a half years to draw the select list and one year and nine months for issuing the engagement order in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, claims that delay on the part of the respondents in finalizing the selection, pursuant to the judgment of this Court passed on 31.12.2012, cannot act to the prejudice of the petitioner. The petitioner is, thus, entitled to be appointed as ReT w.e.f. 01.12.2004 i.e. the date, when the panel was first prepared by the respondents, which was later quashed by this Court in SWP No.1827/2004. It is in this background, the petitioner has claimed the reliefs prayed for in this petition.

(3.) The respondents have filed their objections. The stand taken by the respondents briefly stated is that delay in finalizing the selection process initiated, vide advertisement notification dated 12.01.2004, was neither deliberate nor intentional but due to the litigation filed by the petitioner and the others challenging the select panel, which was prepared by the respondents on 01.12.2004. It is, thus, submitted by the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to any retrospective appointment. More so, when nobody else from the panel prepared pursuant to the advertisement notification dated 12.01.2004 has been so appointed. The respondents, thus, claim that no right of the petitioner has been violated, which could give her any cause to maintain this petition. Reliance, in support of the stand taken by the respondents, is placed on several judgments of the Supreme Court, reference to which has been made in the objections filed by the respondents.