The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the directions of the court and giving effect to the findings of the Enquiry Committee in appointment disputes.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal under clause XII of Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 25.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court ['the Writ Court'] in SWP No. 1813/2015 titled 'Badham Kumar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir whereby the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 6 herein ['the writ petitioner'] has been allowed and the order of appointment issued in favour of the appellant has been quashed with a further direction to consider the writ petitioner for appointment.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that vide Advertisement Notification dated 01.05.2010 issued by the office of Chief Education Officer, Samba, two vacancies of ReT in Primary School Dhayansar falling in Purmandal Zone were notified for selection. The consideration was restricted to the permanent residents of the State residing in the village concerned. Three candidates, who had applied for the vacancies in question, were placed in the tentative list of candidates, to be considered for engagement of ReTs by the Zonal Education Officer, Purmanadal. The candidate at S. No. 1 namely, Renu Salathia was admittedly a resident of village Kartholi Morha Dhayansar with highest merit, as such, was ultimately engaged as ReT against one of the two notified vacancies, without any protest or objection from any candidate. The appellant herein was placed at S. No. 2 and the writ petitioner was placed at S. No. 3 in the tentative panel on the basis of their merit.

3. The writ petitioner feeling aggrieved by the placement of the appellant herein in the tentative panel despite being a resident of village Aithem, a different village, filed SWP No. 1386/2011. The grievance projected by the writ petitioner was that the official respondents had, though received written objections from him, yet failed to decide the same. The Single Bench which considered the matter, was of the opinion that, in view of the factual dispute involved in the matter, the petition deserved to be disposed of by directing the Deputy Commissioner, Samba to hold an enquiry vis-a-vis the residence of the parties. It was so ordered by the learned Single Bench while disposing of the writ petition vide order dated 06.02.2013. In compliance with the directions passed by the learned Single Bench, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Samba conducted an enquiry. In the enquiry, it was concluded by him that, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, the writ petitioner was found residing in village Kartholi from birth till date, while as the appellant herein was not residing in village Kartholi at the time of issuance of the Advertisement Notification in question. The said report was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Samba to the Director School Education, Jammu for further necessary action.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed SWP No. 1905/2014 challenging the report of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Samba, but later on, withdrew the said writ petition without seeking any adjudication, probably for the reason that, in the meanwhile, the Director School Education, Samba vide order dated 30.01.2015 impugned in the writ petition had offered appointment to the appellant ignoring adverse report submitted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner Samba. It is this order of the Director School Education, Jammu dated 30.01.2015 which was assailed by the writ petitioner in SWP No. 1813/2015. The Writ Court, after having gone through the entire controversy and, in particular, taking note of the fact that the subsequent incumbent Director School Education, Jammu, namely Simrandeep Singh, while examining the file of appointment of ReT made in favour of the appellant as ReT, had recorded that an impropriety had been committed by the erstwhile Director School Education, Jammu in making the appointment in favour of the appellant, dismissed the writ petition vide judgment impugned.

5. The impugned judgment is assailed by the appellant on multiple g