Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Anju Kumari vs State Of J&K & Ors on 10 September, 2012
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. SWP No. 1053 OF 2010 Anju Kumari Petitioners State of J&K & ors Respondent !Mr. D.S.Chauhan, Advocate ^Mr. Ravinder Sharma, AAG Mr. Rahul Pant, Advocate Mr. JUSTICE J. P. SINGH Date: 10.09.2012 :J U D G M E N T :
JUDGMENT The petitioner questions the Selection and engagement of Veena Kumari-respondent No.6 as Rehbar-e-Taleem in Government Primary School Prangas on the ground that belonging to Habitation Bhardu falling in Halqa Panchayat Lopara-A, she was disentitled to Selection and engagement in the School falling in a different Halqa Panchayat Lopara-B. The respondents contest the petitioners Claim urging that both the petitioner and respondent being the residents of same Revenue Village, i.e. Lopara (Dachhan), it was respondent No.6 alone, who was entitled to Selection, in terms of Government Order No. 396-Edu of 2000 dated 28.04.2000, 2 being higher in merit to the other candidates from the Revenue Village.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions.
It is not disputed by the parties that the petitioner and respondent No.6 belong to same Revenue Village Lopara (Dachhan).
The Advertisement Notice issued by the Chief Education Officer, Kishtwar inviting Applications from permanent residents of the State for engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem, specifically provides that the candidates desirous of seeking consideration must be actually and physically residing, in the village where the vacancy exists. The Advertisement Notice is in accordance with the Policy Guidelines circulated, vide Government Order No.396-Edu of 2000 dated 28.4.2000 and in this view of the matter, respondent No.6s Selection, based on her superior merit from amongst the candidates belonging to the Revenue Village, cannot, therefore, be faulted. The petitioners learned counsels another plea that the respondents Selection was invalid having not been made in terms of Government Order No.288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009, which provided preference to the candidates belonging to the Habitation over those of the Revenue Village, too is found without merit, in that, the Government Order being prospective in operation, as specifically so indicated therein, would not apply to the Selection in question which was initiated a year before the coming into force of the Government Order.
3This apart, the petitioner has not placed any material on records, on the basis whereof, the petitioners Habitation be said to be one contemplated by Government Order No.288- Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009.
For all what has been said above, the petitioners challenge to respondent No.6s Selection and engagement, therefore, fails.
This Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as meritless.
( J. P. Singh ) Judge JAMMU:
10.09.2012 Vinod.