Point of Law: Post of teachers - Selection process - Clarification always dates back to point of time when provision or order sought to be clarified is actually issued. Writ Court was not correct in its conclusion that dispensation for requirement of RBA certificate in violation of terms and conditions of notification or that it was tantamount to changing rules of game.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR, J.

1. This intra Court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.05.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court (“Writ Court”) in SWP No. 1177/2017 titled Haseena Akhter vs. State of J&K and Others, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No. 6 has been allowed and the empanelment of the appellant in merit list quashed.

2. The Chief Education Officer, Pulwama vide advertisement Notification No. DIPK-2806 published in daily newspaper “Greater Kashmir” in its edition dated 07.06.2013 invited application for supplying the regular vacancies of teachers on the pattern of Rehbar-e-Taleem scheme in various schools of the district, which included one vacancy in UPS, Aripal. As is evident from the notification, the vacancy notified was to be filled up from amongst the candidates, who were permanent residents of the concerned revenue village/habitation, wherein the school in question was situated, falling under the ambit of Socially and Educationally backward area as notified vide SRO 294 of 2005 dated 21.10.2005. However, in case the habitation/village was predominantly inhabited by SC/ST population, only candidates belonging to these categories and possessing prescribed qualification were to be considered. The last date for submission of application forms, in terms of the advertisement notification (supra), was 17.06.2013. However, in terms of subsequent notification dated 18.06.2013, the last date for submission of application forms was extended upto to 21.06.2013.

3. The appellant and respondent No. 6, both holding requisite qualifications and being otherwise eligible, submitted their applications and sought consideration for the post of teacher notified for UPS, Aripal. It appears that some of the candidates, who were not possessing RBA certificates or were otherwise not fulfilling the requisite eligibility for obtaining such certificates, were not allowed to submit their applications. They approached the higher authorities for intervention in the matter. It is claimed that the Additional Secretary to Government, School Education Department issued a statement published in daily newspaper “Kashmir Uzma” on 21.06.2013, wherein it was stated that the Additional Secretary to Govt., Department of School Education had assured all such candidates, who were not possessing RBA certificates that they will be considered without insisting for submission of RBA certificates.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Chief Education Officer, Pulwama vide his communication bearing No. CEO/Pul/635-Lit-13/77-75 dated 21.06.2013 clarified that submission of RBA certificate by the candidates residing in the area declared as backward area under the reservation rules was not mandatory for seeking consideration for the posts notified to be filled up on ReT pattern in Socially and Educationally backward areas. With the issuance of aforesaid communication, the appellant and few others were also considered and on the basis of the merit, the appellant came to be placed in the select panel.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the empanelment of the appellant, respondent No. 6 filed SWP No. 1177/2013 and challenged the empanelment of appellant herein primarily on the ground that the communication of the Chief Education Officer dated 21.06.2013 was tantamount to changing the eligibility criteria midway and, therefore, was not permissible in law. It was submitted before the Writ Court that had the impugned communication not issued by the Chief Education Officer and the only candidates, who were possessing certificates of RBA concerned, respondent No. 6 being higher in merit would have been selected. It was, thus, the primary contention of respondent No. 6 before the Writ Court that consideration of the candidates, who, though, belonged to the village concerned but were not possessing RBA certificate because of their ineligibility to get such certificate, was not inconsonance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement no