SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(J&K) 1017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
SANJEEV KUMAR, J.
Mansoor Ahmed and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State and Ors. - Respondents
SWP No.1126 of 2014 and MP No. 1481 of 2014
Decided On : 03-11-2017

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :F.S. Butt, Advocate
For the Respondents:Ravinder Gupta, A.A.G. and F.A. Natnoo, Advocate

Interpretation of the conditions for habitation to be considered a village for the purpose of drawing the panel of local candidates as ReT.

Headnote:

ReT - Ambiguity in Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009 - [396 of Edu 2000, 288-Edu of 2009] - The court discussed the ReT scheme in J & K State, the definition of 'village' as a revenue village, and the conditions for habitation to be considered a village for the purpose of drawing the panel of local candidates as ReT. The court highlighted the conditions that must be fulfilled for a habitation to qualify as a village and emphasized that the area or houses of such habitation beyond the boundary of the revenue village concerned should not be taken into consideration.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners applied for engagement as ReT in a school, and the select panel was directed to be redrawn at revenue village level due to an ambiguity in Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the habitation did not qualify to be a village for the purposes of making selection of local candidates as ReT in terms of Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009 and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues: Ambiguity in Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009 regarding the qualification of habitation as a village for the purpose of ReT selection.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the conditions that must be fulfilled for a habitation to qualify as a village for the purpose of drawing the panel of local candidates as ReT.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. Vide Advertisement Notification No. CEO/K/12SSA/6957-60, dated 28.12.2012 issued by respondent No. 3, applications were invited for engagement of ReT under SSA against the target of 2011-12 in various schools of District Kishtwar including two posts of ReT in new Primary School lower Hunjala falling in revenue village Pochal-B.

2. Responding to the aforesaid advertisement notification, the petitioners along with eight others submitted their applications for consideration against the twin posts of ReT in UPS Hunjala. Accordingly, a merit panel was prepared by the ZEO concerned taking Habitation Hunjala as a village as explained in Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009, dated 08.04.2009. Thereafter, select panel was prepared considering only the eligible candidates belonging to habitation Hunjala. Accordingly, the petitioners were placed at S. No. 2 and 1 respectively. It is the grievance of the petitioners that instead of forwarding panel to the Director School Education for approval and issuing the formal orders of engagement in favour of the petitioners, respondent No. 3 vide his communication dated 30.04.2014 directed that the select panel to be redrawn at revenue village level in the light of certificate issued by the Tehsildar Kishtwar vide his No. 21/44 dated 08.01.2013.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 3 while directing that the select panel be redrawn at revenue village level also called upon respondent No. 4 to take up the matter with Assistant Commissioner (R) Kishtwar for clarification. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent, No. 4 took up the matter with Assistant Commissioner (R) Kishtwar but the Assistant Commissioner (R) Kishtwar instead of giving clarification endorsed the certificate of Tehsildar Kishtwar dated 08.01.2013 stating that the matter falls within the domain of Tehsildar concerned as such does not call for any clarification. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that since the habitation Hunjala qualifies to be a village in terms of Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009, dated 08.04.2009 as such, the panel was rightly drawn by respondent No. 4 by taking habitation Hunjala as a unit. He however, submits that even going by the certificate issued by the Tehsildar concerned dated 08.01.2013 even though habitation Hunjala is scattered over two revenue villages i.e. revenue village Pochal-B where the school in question is situated and Lachdeyaram, yet for the purposes of applicability of Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009, dated 08.04.2009, the same should be taken as one hamlet and the candidates belonging to the aforesaid hamlet alone should be considered irrespective of the fact whether the habitation falls in one village or it is scattered over two revenue villages.

4. The bone of contention in this writ petition is the ambiguity contained in Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009, dated 08.04.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that faced with the same situation, the department of Education while filing the objections in similar writ petition took a stand that the Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009, dated 08.04.2009 needed clarification on this aspect and that the matter had been taken up with the Competent Authority for clarification. He, however, submits that pending clarification, the consideration of this matter needs to be deferred.

5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and gone through record.

6. The facts in this case are not in dispute and the controversy can be resolved by giving a holistic interpretation to Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009, dated 08.04.2009.

7. Before we come to the terms of aforesaid Government Order, it would be appropriate to notice that the ReT scheme in J & K State was launched vide Government Order No. 396 of Edu 2000, dated 28.04.2000 with the following objects:

i. Promoting the decentralized management of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top