1. Through the medium of instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of order No.ZEO/S/RT/1181-82 dated 23.01.2004 (Annexure-C) issued by Zonal Education Officer, Satwari (respondent No.5) vide which Parvinder Kour (respondent No.7) has been engaged as Rehbar-e-Taleem (hereinafter for short referred to as `R-e-T’) Teacher in Government Primary School Haripur, primarily on the ground that she figures at serial No.1 in the merit list (Annexure-A) prepared by respondent No.5, whereas private respondent No.7 at serial No.2 and that her name was also approved by the Village Level Education Committee (VLEC), but she has been ignored for appointment and instead respondent No.7 was appointed, who was less meritorious.

2. Pursuant to notice, Mrs. Neeru Goswami, learned Dy. Advocate General, had put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 6, whereas Mr. K. M. Bhatti, Advocate, had put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.7. Since on one date, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, the instant petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. However, thereafter it was restored and all the respondents were put to fresh notices. Vide my separate Zimini (short) order of today, respondent No.7 has been set ex-parte.

3. The official respondents have refuted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that may be she stood at serial No.1 in the panel prepared by the Zonal Education Officer (respondent No.5), but when he went to village Haripur for spot verification of the application forms, the petitioner’s form was rejected by the Village Level Education Committee (VLEC) with the remarks that she had left the village after getting married and was residing at village Alora, Panchayat Sohanjana. Their further stand is that the petitioner had also applied under R-e-T Scheme vide Annexure-R2 from village Alora where she was married.

4. Since a very short controversy has arisen for the consideration of this Court, as to whether the petitioner deserves to be appointed as R-e-T teacher in Government Primary School Haripur, after she gets married to another village (Revenue Village) and as to how the word `belong’ vis-`-vis the `local candidate’ in the R-e-T Scheme is to be understood, learned counsel for both the sides have consented to the disposal of the petition at this stage itself. Hence, formally admitted.

5. Heard learned counsel for both the sides.

6. Mr. Surinder Singh submits that in the eligibility criteria set down under R-e-T Scheme, the words `actually residing in the village’ are not incurred and instead the word `belong’ has been used and the word `belong’ has not been defined anywhere in the Scheme. According to learned counsel, this controversy had arisen in one of the cases titled `Ranjat Sharma v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and others’ (SWP No. 2014/2003) reported in 2005 (1) SLJ 97, in which the learned Single Judge of this Court held that a person who is connected with the village as a member, part or inhabitant is to be deemed to be a person `belonging’ to that village and it is not necessary that he may reside in that village. According to learned counsel, while dismissing the aforesaid writ petition of the petitioner, who had challenged the appointment of private respondent being similarly situated, the learned Writ Judge observed that a situation can be conceived where a person of a village may go out of the village, reside at some other place may be in search of a job and if he does not get a job there, can he be excluded from the opportunity of getting a job from his own village to which he belongs. The view taken was that the object of making a person belonging to a particular village entitle to appointment is that being a person of the village, he can have better concern for the students of that village as he can promote the objectives envisaged by the Scheme itself.

7. To strengthen his arguments, Mr. Surinder Singh relies upon another judgment of this Court rendered in `Dharamvir Singh v. Stat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document