Back
2018 Supreme(J&K) 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Tashi Rabstan, J.
Ranjana Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
State of J&K & ors. – Respondent
SWP No.2106 of 2006
Decided On : 06-03-2018
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.K. Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA., Mr. Sanchit Verma, Advocate.
Qualifications should be judged based on the submission deadline, and any qualification acquired after that date should not be considered, emphasizing the violation of the doctrine of equality and the arbitrary exercise of power by the authorities.
Headnote:
Quashing of appointment order - Educational qualification - Violation of doctrine of equality - Illegal appointment - Regularization of services - Appointment order in favor of petitioner - Seniority fixation - Creation of supernumerary post - Costs imposed on Zonal Education Officer
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the appointment order of respondent No.5 and requested appointment against the same post due to higher merit. The petitioner and respondent No.5 applied for the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher in a school. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.5's qualification of B.Ed. was considered after the submission deadline, and the petitioner's objections were not addressed by the authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had higher merit than respondent No.5 at the time of application submission and that the consideration of respondent No.5's B.Ed. qualification after the deadline was an arbitrary exercise of power. The court acknowledged the long service of respondent No.5 and directed the appointment of the petitioner as a General Line Teacher with seniority over respondent No.5. The court imposed costs on the Zonal Education Officer for the illegal appointment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the consideration of educational qualifications, the timing of qualification acquisition, and the failure to address the petitioner's objections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that qualifications should be judged based on the submission deadline, and any qualification acquired after that date should not be considered. The court emphasized the violation of the doctrine of equality and the arbitrary exercise of power by the authorities.
Final Decision: The court directed the appointment of the petitioner as a General Line Teacher with seniority over respondent No.5 and the creation of a supernumerary post if necessary. Costs were imposed on the Zonal Education Officer for the illegal appointment.
1. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of Order No.ZEO/SSA/1102-05 dated 01.01.2005 issued on 31.03.2005 by the Zonal Education Officer, Lakhanpur, Kathua, respondent No.4 herein, whereby one Sunita Devi, respondent 5 herein, came to be appointed as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher in Government Middle School Choi, Village Tridwan, Lakhanpur Zone, District Kathua. The petitioner is also seeking a direction to respondents to appoint her against the said post having higher merit than respondent No.5.
2. The facts as projected in the writ petition are that pursuant to Advertisement Notice No.DSEJ/RET/4811-17 dated 29.06.2004 issued by Director School Education, Jammu, respondent No.2 herein, petitioner as well as respondent No.5 applied for their appointment against the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher in Government Middle School Choi, Village Tridwan, Lakhanpur Zone, District Kathua. It is averred that one of the conditions of said advertisement notice was that the applications were to be submitted to the concerned Zonal Education Officers of the respective zone under proper receipt within 15 days of appearance of advertisement. Further, it is averred that though petitioner as well as respondent No.5 both were graduates, yet petitioner was having much higher merit than respondent No.5. It is averred that after the expiry of 15 days, i.e., 14.07.2004, respondent No.4 though prepared the panel for appointment against the said post, however, during the selection process respondent No.4 in order to accord undue favour to respondent No.5, allowed her to place on record her B.Ed. marks sheet dated 07.10.2004, which itself reveals that the same came to be acquired much after the last date of expiry of submission of application forms for the post-in-question. Thus, it is averred that respondent No.4 while considering the qualification of B.Ed. of respondent No.5 selected her for the post-in-question and, accordingly, appointment Order No.ZEO/SSA/1102-05 dated 01.01.2005 came to be issued on 31.03.2005. It is averred that feeling aggrieved, the petitioner submitted two separate objections/representations to Director School Education, Jammu, however, respondent No.2 failed to take any appropriate action in the matter. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Objections have been filed on behalf of respondents. In the objections filed on behalf of official respondents 1 to 4, it is averred that respondent No.5 came to be selected as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher in Middle School Choi, Village Tridwan on the basis of her having higher qualification of B.A. than that of petitioner herein. Further, it is averred that Director School Education, Jammu vide Communication No.DSEJ/NG/SSA/10472-77 dated 12.10.2004 had clarified to all the Chief Education Officers of Jammu/Kathua that the applicants, who had applied earlier before the issuance of Notification No.DSEJ/1872-79 dated 27.08.2004, be also included in the panels and the panels be updated accordingly. Thus, it is averred that respondent No.4 in compliance to said communication dated 12.10.2004 updated the panel and included the qualification of respondent No.5 after the cut-of date; thus she came to be selected having higher merit than that of petitioner.
4. In the objections filed on behalf of respondent No.5, it is averred that in view of her qualification of B.Ed., she was having higher merit than that of petitioner herein. Further, it is averred that respondent No.5 was having the qualification of B.Ed. before finalization of the panel, so her qualification of B.Ed. was rightly entertained by the then Zonal Education Officer.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival contentions, perused the original record produced as well as the writ record.
6. The question arises for consideration is: whether the petitioner had higher merit than respondent No.5 herein at the time of submission of application forms and whether the qual
