The court affirmed that eligibility for public employment requires meeting qualification criteria by the cut-off date, while also recognizing the principle of equity favoring long-serving employees in employment disputes.

JUDGMENT :

1. Quashment of engagement of private respondents 8&9 made vide Order no.ZEO/ReT/622-25/S dated 26th July 2011 and no.ZEO/SSA/ ReT / 629-29/S dated 126th July 2011, is sought. A direction to respondents to appoint petitioner as ReT upon quashment of engagement of private respondents in Primary School, Nawab Kha Tehsil Pattan District Baramulla, is also sought.

2. Briefly put, the case set up by Mohammad Yousuf Dar, Petitioner, is that he possesses 10+2 qualification. Respondent no.6 issued advertisement notice inviting applications for engagement of two Rehbar-e-Taleems (ReTs) from inhabitants of village Nawab Kha, Chanabal, which was published in a newspaper, Kashmir Uzma, on 1st November 2010. Petitioner also responded thereto. Respondents prepared a Panel, which contained names of private respondents as well. Aggrieved thereof, petitioner challenged it in a writ petition (SWP no.606/2011), which he, however, subsequently withdrew with liberty to file a fresh writ petition. Another writ petition, being SWP no.1676/2011 was filed. However, in the meantime, engagement orders were issued in favour of private respondents, due to which abovementioned writ petition became infructuous, so the same was withdrawn on 10th August 2011.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by private respondents 8&9, in which they state that petitioner is only 10+2 by his qualification and by no stretch of imagination he can challenge their engagement. They also state that no annexure with petition demonstrates that at the time of cut off date of receipt of application, petitioner was Graduate and has obtained, but certificate dated 12th March 2011 relied upon by petitioner is provisional certificate issued much after cut off date with no supported valid degree for any marks card. Petitioner has completed only 10+2 level and he cannot be compared with respondents over much meritorious as being graduate inasmuch as petitioner was not having valid degree at the time of cut off date. It is also stated by respondents that it is incorrect that respondent no.9 has not valid certificate at the time of submission of forms and there is no such remarks on the marks card of respondent no.9. The qualification and marks card submitted by respondent no.9 came to be scrutinized by official respondents vide letter no.ZEO/S/73/25-2-2011 with the Controller University of Kashmir and while enquiring the matter, verification of results of respondent no.9 came to be verified by University Authorities vide letter dated 10th January 2011 and 1st March 2011 and have in unequivocal terms verified that respondent no.9 to be passed and on the same basis empanelment of respondent no.9 has been done and proceeded with.

4. Reply affidavit has been filed by official respondents through Zonal Education Officer, Singhpora, Pattan, in which they state that candidate, namely, Mtr. Gulshan Akhter, who stands at serial no.1 (b) in the List of candidates produced her PRC and Nikah Nama (Marriage Deed) in the office of respondent-Zonal Education Officer, Singhpora, Pattan, as a proof for her residence which shows that she resides at Nawasbkah and respondent-ZEO ascertained and verified it personally. The candidate, Mohammad Yousuf Dar, who stands at serial no.1 (d) in the List filed objections against Mr. Nazir Ahmed Dar, who is at serial no.1 (a) in the List, wherein he has stated that Nazir Ahmed Dar’s Degree certificate is not valid for appointment because he has not passed the optional subject, Environment Science, in the 2nd Year of the Three-Year Degree course. The claim seems to be false as the marks sheet submitted by Mr. Nazir Ahmed Dar with his application does not show that he has failed in the subject of Environment Science in the 2nd year of Degree course. In order to clear the doubt, respondent-ZEO wrote to the Controller of Examinations, Kashmir University, vide no.ZEO/S/577 wherein respondent-ZEO asked him that the marks sheet mentions that mere possession of marks shee