The main legal point established is that marrying outside the village does not disqualify a candidate for engagement as a Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher if they continue to actually reside in the same village at the time of appointment.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the selection/engagement of respondent No. 5 as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher in Primary School Dhanpur of Revenue Village Gurah Manhasan, Tehsil Akhnoor District Jammu.

2. Chief Education Officer, Jammu issued an Advertisement Notice No. CEOJ/SSA/2973-75 dated 29.04.2011, for engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers under SSA in Primary School on account of vacancy on account of Primary School elevated out of EGS under SSA. In Zone Jourian, one post each was advertised in Primary School, Dhanpur, Primary School, Kothey Chiban & Primary School Marira in revenue village Gurah Manhasan. The respondent No. 4 after receipt of the application forms of all the candidates prepared the panel/list of candidates to be engaged as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers in the aforesaid village. The petitioner had applied for one of the posts of RET in revenue village Gurah Manhasan and the merit panel was framed and the petitioner was placed Serial No. 4 in the panel, however, respondent No. 5 was placed at serial No. 2.

3. The panel was displayed and the objections were invited from the general public regarding the tentative panel prepared by the official respondents. The contention of the petitioner is that she submitted her objections with regard to the candidature of respondent No. 5 figuring at serial No. 2 of the said panel on the ground that she was married outside the village and after her marriage, she shifted to village Kote-Bhalwal, Tehsil Bhalwal District Jammu. The respondent no. 5 is residing permanently with her in-laws and, as such, was not eligible for engagement against the post of RET advertised for Revenue Village Gurah, Manhasan, Tehsil Akhnoor.

4. It is submitted that after receipt of the objections from the petitioner, respondent No. 2 directed respondent No. 3 to enquire into the objections and after conducting enquiry, the matter was referred to respondent No. 4 for investigation. A detailed report was submitted by respondent No. 4, however, without considering the same, respondent No. 5 was engaged as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher for Primary School, Dhanpur of Revenue Village Gurah, Manhasan, Tehsil Akhnoor.

5. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the selection/engagement of respondent No. 5 on the ground that she has been engaged in violation of Government Order No. 394-Edu of 2006 dated 28.07.2006 and was not eligible to be engaged as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher for Primary School Dhanpur. The petitioner submits that respondent No. 5 has shifted from village Gurah Manhasan, Tehsil Akhnoor to village Kote-Bhalwal, Tehsil Bhalwal after her marriage on 28.11.2011 and is permanently residing there and as such, is ineligible to be engaged/selected as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher in village Gurah Manhasan, Tehsil Akhnoor .

6. The respondent No. 4 after conducting detailed enquiry recommended the selection/engagement of the next meritorious candidate i.e., the petitioner, however, respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have ignored the said recommendation and entitlement of the petitioner for the engagement of the aforesaid post.

7. In her objections, respondent No. 5 has submitted that though the petitioner had also participated in the selection process for the post of RET but she possessing qualification B.A/B.Ed. having superior merit i.e., 51.45% than the petitioner, who secured 45.51% in B.A/B.Ed., was recommended to be engaged as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher for village Dhanpur, Tehsil Akhnoor. The panel was duly prepared by the Village Education Committee and recommended by the Zonal Education Officer, Jourian, wherein three candidates including the petitioner were tentatively selected for the post but the petitioner being lesser in merit could not be recommended against any of the post.

8. The objections filed by the petitioner against the tentative panel were duly considered and verification was initiated. After the completion of the verification, it was found that though the answering respondent No. 5 was