Point of Law: Employment and Service matter - Quashment of appointment of respondent - Parties are bound by decision which is not challenged and is in force as on date, therefore there is no scope as far as quashment of appointment of respondent no. 10 is concerned on whatsoever grounds unless trial court decides issue regarding factum of residence of respondent no. 10.

JUDGMENT :

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY, J.

1. By the instant petition, petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to the effect that (i) Appointment order of respondent no. 10 as R-e-T teacher made in terms of Order No. ZEO/R/RT-11/746-48 dated 28.07.2011 and (ii) Enquiry issued under No. DCV/LRA/Enquiry/2011/57-59 dated 28.4.2011, be quashed. Petitioner has further sought a writ of Mandamus to the effect that petitioner be appointed as R-e-T teacher being next in merit after Respondent no. 8, on the grounds taken in the memo of petition.

2. To appreciate the issue in its proper perspective, a brief look at the events, as they happened, is desired.

3. A notification dated 11.11.2010, for appointment of two number of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers for upgraded Primary School at New Colony Ompora, Budgam, falling under Ward no. 8, issued by respondent no. 7-Zonal Education Officer, Budgam, was responded to besides others, by the petitioner and the respondent no. 10 by offering their candidature for the said posts. The eligibility for the posts in question as prescribed in the Notification was 10+2 or above level with Mathematics and Science background aged between 18 to 37 years as on 01.01.2010. Subsequently, a panel was drawn by the Zonal Education Officer and the petitioner is reflected at serial no. 3 therein while as the respondent no. 10 is shown to be at serial no. 2.

4. It is further stated in the writ petition that the respondent no. 10 is hailing from Batpora Handwara and is not a resident of the area for which the posts in question were advertised and the respondent no. 10 by way of fraud has managed his residential status. In that view of the matter, the petitioner, feeling aggrieved of the inclusion of the respondent no. 10 in the panel, filed a representation before respondent no. 3 objecting to the inclusion of respondent no. 10 in the panel. Besides, the Welfare Committee of Government Housing Colony Ompora, Budgam, is also stated to have objected to the inclusion of respondent no. 10 in the panel on the same ground of not being the resident of the area. It is further stated in the writ petition that even the PRC produced in support of his claim by the respondent no. 10 does not show him to be the resident of the Ward No. 8 where the posts are sanctioned but of Ompora Village.

5. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was constrained to file a civil suit questioning the inclusion of respondent no. 10 in the panel.

6. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner, (Rev) Budgam, has Vide No. DCB/LRA Enquiry/2011/57-59 dated 28.04.2011 returned a finding, in an enquiry initiated on the application of the petitioner, to the effect that out of the two candidates respondent no. 10 has the PRC of village Ompora Tehsil Budgam while as the petitioner is having PRC of Srinagar, therefore, respondent no. 10 deserve to be considered for selection to the ReT post.

7. Thereafter, the interim relief application of the petitioner was rejected by the court below by vacating the interim order dated 12.2.2011 in terms of order dated 29.04.2011 providing therein that the tentative list challenged is not the final list but subject to objections, therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff ought to have filed objections to such tentative list.

8. Thereafter, the official respondents issued an appointment order in favour of respondent no. 10 which the petitioner came to know when a writ petition, SWP no. 2192/2016 came to be filed by the respondent no. 10 before this Court, and the petitioner represented/ objected to such appointment at every administrative level but could not get justice, therefore, was constrained to file the writ petition in hand.

9. Aggrieved of the action initiated against him as indicated hereinbefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to seek the relief as reflected in the foregoing paragraphs on the grounds, that: the appointment earned by the respondent no. 10 is on the strength of the fraud documents as such liable to set at naught; petitioner be