Advocates:
['SUDERSHAN SHARMA', 'RAVINDER GUPTA', 'AAG', '', 'J S WAZIR', 'J S JASROTIA']

1

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT

JAMMU

SWP No.204/2016 & MP No. 1/2016

_____________________________________________________________

Sahireena Begum

Vs

State & others.

Coram :

Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. S. Walia - Judge

Appearing Counsel :

For petitioner (s) : Mr. Sudershan Sharma , Advocate.

For respondent (s) : Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG.

i)

Whether to be reported in

:

Yes/No.

Press / Media

ii)

Whether to be reported in

:

Yes.

Digest / Journal

Judgment.,

1.

Brief background of the case is that pursuant to

Advertisement notice dated 13.6.2010 issued by respondent

No.3, respondent No. 4 prepared a panel of candidates by

taking into consideration Government Order No. 288-Edu of

2009 dated 8.4.2009, in which the petitioner was shown at

serial No.3 on the basis of her academic merit. So far as the

candidate figuring at serial No. 2 namely Mohd. Arshad

Khanday was concerned, the petitioner objected to the

empanelment of respondent No. 2 on the ground that he was

actually and physically residing in a different hamlet i.e.

Upper Tandar, therefore, was not entitled for consideration

and appointment against the said post. Objections filed by the

petitioner were not decided, whereupon the petitioner invoked

the jurisdiction of this Court by way of SWP No. 310/2011, in

2

which interim order dated 15.02.2011 was passed staying the

selection process.

2.

During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the

Zonal Education Officer, Marwah, who had prepared the panel

which had been impugned in SWP No. 310/2011, was

transferred and posted as Chief Education Officer, Baramulla

and his successor submitted report Annexure C dated

11.05.2012 stating therein that the claim of the petitioner was

genuine, as aforesaid Mohd. Arshad Khanday was actually

and physically resident of Mohra Upper Tandar. Accordingly

the petitioner filed CMA No. 1778/2012 in SWP No. 310/2011

and prayed for disposal of the writ petition on the basis of the

report Annexure C dated 11.05.2012 submitted by the ZEO,

Marwah. CMA No. 1778/2012 was disposed of vide order

dated 12.06.2012 with a direction that the pendency of the

writ petition would not come in the way of the respondents

considering the case of petitioner in terms of communication

Annexure C dated 11.05.2012 addressed by the ZEO,

Marwah to CEO, Kishtwar. Pursuant thereto, the official

respondents engaged the petitioner as ReT in Primary School,

Lower Tander vide Annexure-E dated 17.06.2013.

3.

Grievance of the petitioner is that it was due to the

negligence and connivance of the then ZEO Marwah who

inserted the name of Mohd. Arshad Khanday i.e. respondent

No. 2 over and above the petitioner in the panel that the

engagement of the petitioner as ReT got delayed and had

there been no litigation, the petitioner would have been

engaged as ReT in 2011 itself ; that the petitioner’s

3

engagement as ReT was withheld due to the reasons

mentioned above for which the petitioner contested a long

drawn litigation, resultantly the petitioner got engaged as ReT

in the year 2013 vide order Annexure E dated 17.06.2013 and

the process of her engagement got delayed from 04.08.2011

i.e. the date when the other candidates who had competed in

selection process of Rets along with the petitioner, came to

be appointed.

4.

Learned counsel contends that the claim is covered in

terms of order of this court Annexure G, dated 12.06.2015 in

SWP No.1809/2015. Relevant extract of the decision relied

upon is reproduced hereunder :

"In view of the circumstances leading to the delay in

engagement of petitioner on account of filing of SWP No.

1058/2009 by one Ms. Rajinder Kour which was

dismissed on account of her not being eligible,

petitioners claim for