Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Haseena Akhter vs State Of J&K; And Others on 6 May, 2017
Author: Mohammad Yaqoob Mir
Bench: Mohammad Yaqoob Mir
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
SWP No.117/2013
MP Nos.1879/2013 & 01/2017
Date of Decision:06-05-2017
Haseena Akhter Vs. State of J&K&Ors.
Coram:
Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Judge
Appearing counsel:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Ulfat.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sheikh Manzoor, Dy. AG-for R1 to R5.
Mr. M. Ashraf Wani-for R6.
i) Whether to be reported in Digest/Journal: YES/NO
ii) Whether to be reported in Press/Media: YES/NO/OPTIONAL
1. Vide notification No.635-Edu of 2010 dated 04.08.2010, sanction has been accorded to the filling up of regular vacancies of teachers in Socially and Educationally Backward areas and in areas near Line of Actual Control identified under the J&K Reservation Rules on the pattern of Rehbar-e-Taleem scheme, in the first instance for a period of two years with a condition that in case of the habitations predominantly inhabited by Sc/ST population, only the candidates belonging to these categories and possessing the prescribed qualification shall be considered for selection as Rehbar-e-Taleem.
2
2. Again vide Govt. order No.522-EDU of 2013 dated 08.05.2013, in partial modification of order No.635-Edu of 2010 dated 04.08.2010, sanction has been accorded to the extension in validity of special dispensation for the recruitment of teachers on the ReT pattern in Socially and Educationally Backward Areas and in the areas near the Actual Line of Control identified under the J&K Reservation Rules retrospectively w.e.f. 04.08.2012 till date and prospectively for a period of two years w.e.f. 08.05.2013.
3. In pursuance to aforesaid Govt. order, advertisement notice has been issued by Chief Education Officer, Pulwama, inviting applications for filling up of regular vacancies on the pattern of ReT scheme in various schools which include one post in UPS, Aripal. The said advertisement notice has been published in the newspaper on 07.06.2013. The cutoff date for receipt of applications was ten days, means 17.06.2013.
4. Perusal of the record reveals that seven candidates had applied which include the petitioner who, as per merit, would figure at serial No.1.
3
5. On 18.06.2013, a notification has been issued extending the date up to 22.06.2013. The respondent No.6, as such, applied on 20.06.2013 but without annexing RBA certificate with her application form which has been entertained.
6. In terms of one of the conditions incorporated in the advertisement notice i.e. condition No.4(e), the reserved category certificate (Resident of Socially & Educationally Backward area) issued by the competent authority was to be annexed with the application form, which the petitioner has.
7. On 21.06.2013, Chief Education Officer, Pulwama, vide his communication No.CEO/Pul/635-Lit-13-770-75, addressed to the Director, School Education, Kashmir, Srinagar, has conveyed that prospective meritorious candidates are not possessing RBA certificates in-spite of being bona fide residents of instant village/habitations falling the category of RBA as they are not being awarded the said certificate by the revenue authorities for having not completed the minimum requirement of 15 years residence. It is 4 further conveyed that in a situation where the selection unit is required to be extended to a Panchayat Halqa owing to non-availability of eligible candidates, the eligible meritorious candidate become available from habitation/village not falling in the reserved backward area, under such circumstances, the candidate could be selected from a non-RBA village, as such, the candidate not possessing RBA certificate but being resident of backward village/habitation can be justified in seeking engagement without the requirement of RBA certificate.
8. Petitioner seem to have filed a representation highlighting that since sufficient number of candidates i.e. seven candidates had applied as against one vacancy, the extension of date up to 22.06.2013 was only with a design to give chance to respondent No.6 to apply because during the extended period it is only one candidate i.e. respondent No.6 who had applied without annexing RBA certificate with her application form which has been entertained.
5
9. Based on the representation of the petitioner, enquiry has been conducted by Zonal Education officer, Lurgam, wherein it has been mentioned that the cutoff date for receipt of applications was fixed 10 days from the date of publication of the notification i.e. 18.06.2013. As per records, 07 applications for UPS, Aripal were received. The extension of date up to 22.06.2013 was for favouring the blue eyed candidate, otherwise sufficient number of candidates have applied for the post. The concerned office has divulged that Chief Education Officer, Pulwama, had verbally asked them to receive the application without category certificate as the Government has issued an order in this behalf. Then has opined that the same has been done to favour those persons who have greased the palms of the people at the helm of affairs. Then has recommended that all such panels and process should be declared null and void, fresh applications should be invited where ever necessary without cutoff date and conditions as laid down in the notification dated 07.06.2013 and merit remains same.
6
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed CMP No.01/2017 for placing on record another enquiry report conducted by Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School, Satoora. In the report, the Principal has made the position clear i.e. there was no justification in extending date for receipt of the application. Then has recorded his impression to the effect that the officers both at CEOs level as well as ZEOs have committed error when sole aim and object is to uphold the condition of merit in every situation so as to uphold impartiality.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 would submit that as per scheme, there was no scope for asking all candidates to annex RBA certificate with the application. The object is to select a candidate from a locality which is mostly inhabited by Socially and Education Backward person or the people living near line of actual control. Same is the stand of respondents No.1 to 4. Supporting this submission, have relied on Govt. order No.1034-Edu of 2013 dated 26.12.2013, in terms whereof clarification vis-à-vis Govt. order 7 No.522-Edu of 2013 dated 08.05.2013 has been issued to the following effect:
"That Special Dispensation for recruitment of teachers on the ReT pattern in Socially and Educationally Backward Area and in the Areas near Line of Control identified under the J&K Reservation Rules shall be applicable to all those eligible candidates whosoever actually residing in the area holding bonafide PRC at the time of engagement/appointment consistent with the norms/guidelines laid down time to time under the scheme in vogue".
12. The most important question which arise for consideration is as to whether the process initiated on the terms and conditions incorporated in the advertisement notice published on 07.06.2013 could be deviated from. Another question is as to whether after cutoff date, Chief Education Officer was competent to extend the date without having any justified reason.
13. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the time has been extended with the sole object of allowing respondent No.6 to apply, that too without satisfying condition No.4(e) of the advertisement 8 notice. Why that has been allowed to happen is open to many inferences. Least said is better.
14. When the process of selection is set in motion, then terms and conditions as notified have to be strictly followed. Same cannot be allowed to be altered at a subsequent stage, that too without any justified cause. When up to cutoff date seven candidates had applied, the most meritorious should have been selected, which, admittedly, is the petitioner. In an arbitrary manner, Chief Education Officer has attempted to pave a way for inclusion of respondent No.6. Even though respondent No.6 is meritorious but she had not applied within the prescribed time and then has been given chance to apply by extending the date, that too without adhering to the conditions of advertisement notice.
15. The mode and method of selection consistent with the terms and conditions of the advertisement notice cannot be altered, more so when same would be to the disadvantage of a person having reasonable and legitimate expectation.
9
16. In accordance with the eligibility and the criteria, the selection process has to be finalized. No change or alteration without any justifiable cause would be permitted. The extension of time for submitting applications has been clearly with the sole object of inclusion of respondent No.6 as it is only respondent No.6 who has applied during the extended period. Same cannot be said to be free from blame. The Principal, Higher Secondary School, Satoora, who has submitted the enquiry report regarding the matter, has recorded his impressions to the effect that the Chief Education Officer has acted in a manner which was not warranted under law.
17. Cumulative effect of the afore-stated facts, circumstances and the discussion is that the period extended for submission of applications was without any justification, as a result whereof inclusion of respondent No.6 was unwarranted. Up to the cutoff date seven candidates had applied, therefore, selection of a meritorious candidate out of said seven candidates has to be made. Same process shall be finalized within 10 a period of four weeks from the date copy of the judgment is served upon respondents.
(Mohammad Yaqoob Mir) Judge Srinagar 06.05.2017 "Bhat Altaf"