Back
2020 Supreme(J&K) 118
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Rajesh Bindal, Sindhu Sharma, JJ.
Taslima Begum - Appellant
Versus
Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir & Ors. - Respondent
LPA No. 30 of 2020 (O&M) In SWP No. 23/2015
Decided On : 04-03-2020
Mr. O. P. Thakur, Advocate, for the Appellant; -, for the Respondent
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Snapping of mobile services - Claim of rightful candidate in earlier selection - Services were restored in November staff in office of counsel forget to inform applicant appellant about dismissal of writ petition - It is only when appellant applicant enquired about status of her case that she was informed about dismissal of writ petition - Immediately thereafter certified copy was applied and present appeal was filed - Hence delay was not intentional – Held, Judgments relied upon by learned counsel for applicant appellant are distinguishable as in those matters direction was issued by courts for grant deemed benefits in matters where selection itself was in question and some of candidates had been appointed either from that selection or in subsequent selection ignoring claim of rightful candidate in earlier selection - Facts in case in hand are different - Contention raised regarding grant of deemed date of appointment and consequential regularization is also far etched as benefit is being sought for period of about decade though applicant appellant actually joined service scheme any Teacher has to actually work for period of five years and paid honorarium besides report of good conduct is also one of pre requisite for regularization as General Line Teacher - In case applicant appellant she having not worked for all this period and paid nothing cannot in any way be said to be eligible to be regularized as General Line Teacher merely on deemed basis and even paid salary without working – Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT
Rajesh Bindal, J. - The petitioner having failed before the learned Single Judge has filed the present intra-court appeal impugning the judgment dated 23.07.2019. The appeal is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay of 136 days in filing thereof.
2. Mr. O. P. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/appellant submitted that after the dismissal of the writ petition on 23.07.2019, the counsel for the applicant/appellant tried to contact her on the mobile number given by her, however, with the snapping of mobile services in the then J&K State from 05.08.2019 onwards, he was not successful. When the services were restored in November 2019, the staff in the office of the counsel forget to inform the applicant/appellant about the dismissal of the writ petition. It is only when the appellant/applicant enquired about the status of her case on 27.01.2020 that she was informed about the dismissal of the writ petition. Immediately thereafter certified copy was applied and the present appeal was filed. Hence, the delay was not intentional.
3. As far as merits of the case are concerned, Mr. O.P. Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submitted that advertisement Notice No. 1703-05 dated 12.01.2004 was issued inviting applications for various posts of ReT available in different schools. This included 3 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 applied in pursuance to the aforesaid notification. Panel of 16 candidates was prepared. The petitioner was placed at serial No. 9. In the meantime, another notification was issued by Zonal Education Officer, Bhalessa on 09.07.2004 whereby three posts of ReT in Middle School Alni and two posts in New Primary School Bonecha in the revenue village Alni Gangota, were notified. The applicant/appellant responded to these advertisements as well. Panel of 18 candidates was prepared. The petitioner was again placed at serial No. 9. The applicant/appellant and six other candidates challenged both the panels by filing SWP No. 1827/2004, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 31.12.2012. The select list prepared by the respondents was quashed and the matter remitted to the Chief Education Officer to examine the claim of the parties. The needful was to be done within four months. In the fresh panel prepared, the petitioner was placed at serial No.2 in the order of merit. Consequently, she was appointed as ReT Teacher in Government High School Gangota vide order dated 26.09.2014 and joined her services in pursuance thereto.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed SWP No. 23/2015 claiming that delay in appointment was not on account of any fault of the petitioner. Hence, she should be deemed to be appointed w.e.f. 01.12.2004 when the panel was prepared first time and be granted all consequential benefit including regularization as General Line Teacher. The learned Single Judge has wrongly denied the benefit which was due to the petitioner and in fact she deserves to be regularized after five years service of deemed appointment. In support of her plea, reliance was placed on the judgment of Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Dhar v. Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission, (2000) 8 SCC 182 and judgments of this Court in Sarfaraz Maqbool Bhat v. State and ors, 2015 (3) JKJ[HC] 227 and SWP No. 1419/2010 titled Amar Singh v. State of J&K and others decided on 04.10.2012.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
6. No doubt, in pursuance to the advertisement issued for appointment of ReT Teacher in different schools, select panel was prepared on 01.12.2004 but the same could not be given effect to as it was challenged by the applicant/appellant along with six other candidates by filing SWP No. 1827/2004. The writ petition was
