Back
2010 Supreme(J&K) 514
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Virender Singh ,Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, JJ.
Sarita Devi -Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Kumar & Ors. -Resopndent
LPA (SW) No. 48-2007
Decided On : 06-10-2010
Surinder Kour, Neeru Goswami, Narinder Kumar Attri.
Concealment of material facts and approaching the court with unclean hands can render a judgment unsustainable.
Headnote:
Concealment of Facts - Appointment Dispute - 396-Edu - 1670 - Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme - The court discussed the concealment of facts by the writ petitioner, the discontinuation of the Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme and the introduction of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme, and the qualifications and merit of the candidates. The court set aside the judgment and directed the finalization of the teacher selection process in accordance with the applicable rules.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the appointment of a teacher under the Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme. The writ petitioner sought appointment based on an earlier panel, while the appellant contended that the Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme had ended and a new scheme was introduced.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petitioner concealed important facts and approached the court with unclean hands. The judgment was set aside, and the respondent was directed to finalize the teacher selection process in accordance with the applicable rules.
Issues: Concealment of facts, discontinuation of Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme, introduction of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme, qualifications and merit of candidates
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the writ petitioner's concealment of later developments and approach with unclean hands rendered the judgment unsustainable. The discontinuation of the Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme and the introduction of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme were crucial in determining the applicable rules for teacher selection.
Final Decision: The judgment was set aside, and the respondent was directed to finalize the teacher selection process in accordance with the applicable rules.
1. Impugned is the Judgment passed by the Learned Writ Court on 22.2.2007, where under the panel in which appellant figured at S. No. 1 has been quashed and the respondents therein have been directed to make appointment of Rehbar-e-Taleem as per the first panel, wherein respondent No.1 figured at S. No. 2.
2. For appreciating the matter in its right perspective it shall be quite advantageous to precisely notice the factual background.
3. The Government vide its order No. 396-Edu dated 28.4.2000 sanctioned the launching of the scheme of Rehbar-e-Taleem, interms whereof (Rehbar-e-Taleem) Teaching Guide were to be engaged. VLC(Village Level Committee) were to prepare the penal.
4. In consonance thereof advertisement came to be issued from the office of respondent No.5 in the year 2000, whereunder applications were invited for the engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem teachers at village level and the applications were to be submitted to the Zonal Officers of the respective zone. In the process panel of three candidates i.e. appellant-respondent No.1 and of one Janko Devi was prepared for the vacancy as was to be filled in Primary School Jangwal. The said Janko Devi in order of merit figured at S. No. 1, so was engaged.
5. Respondent No.1 complained that said Janko Devi had produced a fake certificate which on inquiry was found to be correct, resultantly her selection and engagement as RET was cancelled vide order dated 23.10.2003 passed by respondent No.5.
6. Claim of the respondent No. 1 was that in the panel he figured at S. No.2, so when the selection and appointment of Janko Devi who figured at S. No. 1 was cancelled, in her place appellant should have been engaged. When he was not appointed the petition SWP No. 1297/04 was filed with the following prayer:
"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued thereby commanding upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner against the post of teacher lying vacant in the Govt. School Jangwal, Tehsil R.S. Pura, District Jammu in view of Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme."
Learned writ court has allowed the said petition. The operative part of the Judgment is quoted hereunder:
"In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed with a cost of Rs. 10,000. The second panel Annexure R.8 shall stand quashed and appointment, if any, made on the basis of said panel shall also stand quashed. Respondents are directed to make the appointment/engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem in Government School, Jangwal, Tehsil R.S. Pura, as per the first panel Annexure R.1. This would be done within a period of one month from the date, a copy of this order is made available to respondents by the petitioner.
Respondent-State, however, shall be at liberty to recover the above cost from ZEO concerned.
Disposed of accordingly alongwith the connected CMPs, if any."
7. During the pendence of the petition it had been brought on record that fresh penal has been prepared, wherein appellant figures at S. No.1 and Ramesh Kumar respondent No.1 figure at S. No. 2. It has been noticed by the Learned writ court that at the time of advertisement of 2000 appellant was not possessing the requisite qualification. She has subsequently qualified 10+2 and it is in this backdrop Learned writ court quashed the said second penal marked as Annexure-R8 therein. The appellant not being the party to the said writ petition has been condemned unheard.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Judgment is liable to be set aside on two counts.
1. That the respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) has concealed the material facts ;
2. That the Judgment against the appellant has been passed when she was not a party to the writ petition, so condemned unheard.
9. The contentions of the Learned counsel have prevailing force, for the reasons to follow. The respondent (writ petitioner) has concealed an important fact i.e. after cancellation of appointment of Janko Devi in the year 2003, what has happened i
