Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Mohammad Hussain Mohand vs State Of Jk And Ors on 23 October, 2024
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
S.No. 2
Reg. List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
SWP 929/2019
[WP(C) 1539/2019]
MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN MOHAND .....Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. R.A Jan, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. M. Yahaya, Advocate
V/s
STATE OF JK AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Syed Musaib, Dy AG for R 1-5
Mr. M. Tufail, Advocate for R-6
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE.
ORDER
23.10.2024
1. Heard both sides. Perused the writ record.
2. An exercise which otherwise is meant to be simple and fair with respect to selection and appointment of Rehbar-e-Taleem (Teachers) can consume judicial time reckoning from 2014 till date is not a tasteful commentary on the state of affairs of the selection procedure which invariably came to afflict Rehbar e-Taleems (Teachers) appointments in erstwhile State of J&K leaving this High Court to carry on bearing burden of adjudication as on date.
3. Pursuant to a selection exercise, the petitioner herein came to be selected/appointed as Rehbar-e-Taleem (Teacher) for Middle School ( later on up graded to Primary School) Sudurana Pushroo, District Anantnag in terms of an order No. 519 of DSEK/SSA/RT/Ang. Dated 02.02.2011 but which actually came to be given effect later in terms of Order No. ZEO/S/706-07/13 dated 04.06.2013.
4. Pursuant to this order, the appointment of the petitioner came to be ordered and given effect to but however subject to outcome of a civil suit filed by the respondent No. 8 Mst. Jawaza Akhter who reckoned herself to be entitled to be so appointed and sought disqualification of the petitioner's appointment order.
5. Chief Education Officer (CEO), Anantnag came forward with an order No. CEO/A/Per/2705-6/13 dated 13.06.2013 thereby putting on hold the ReT engagement order with respect to the petitioner with immediate effect till further orders on account of non-observance of the requisite formalities and on account of stay order issued by court in terms of order dated 06.06.2013 in the civil suit tilted "Mst Jawaza Akhter Vs. State of J&K & Ors.".
6. From this stage onwards, situation came to take turn towards litigation resulting in filing of a writ petition bearing SWP No. 413 of 2014 preferred by the petitioner which resulted in a judgment dated 08.06.2015 being adverse to the petitioner's position resulting in filing of letter patent appeal (LPA SW) No. 251 of 2015 which resulted in the following outcome in terms of judgment dated 05.04.2016 to following effect:-
"The writ court, in view of attended facts and circumstances of the case, has made an effort to address the issue and no imprecision is found in the impugned judgment. However, with a view that the issue is more effectively addressed, we direct the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, to consider the matter in terms of the directions passed by the writ court. In case, in the process, factum of habitation goes against the appellant, the tentative selection list shall be acted upon."
7. The exercise intended by the Division Bench judgment seems to have taken a long stretch of time and issue of actual appointment of petitioner viz-a-viz respondent No.8 remained entangled in the exercise without any fault either on the part of the petitioner or on the part of the respondent No. 8.
8. In the meantime, the Government of State of J&K, as it was then, through School Education Department came forward with a Government Order No. 919-Edu of 2018 dated 16.11.2018 thereby according sanction to formal closure of ReT Scheme and ReT recruitment/engagement process originally notified vide Government Order No. 396-Edu of 2000 dated 28.04.2000.
9. The sanction order of closure of ReT scheme reads as Under:-
i) "Formal closure of the Ret Scheme and the ReT recruitment/engagement process notified vide Government Order No. 396-Edu of 2000 dated 28.04.2000 along with subsequent modification/amendments. However, the existing ReTs already appointed under the scheme or on ReT pattern shall continue to be governed under the erstwhile scheme till their regularization or otherwise;
ii) All advertisement notices for engagement or Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers or panels prepared where no engagement orders have been issued shall and shall always be deemed to have been cancelled/ withdrawn as ab-initio."
10.Post Government Order No. 919-Edu of 2018 dated 16.11.2018, the Chief Education Officer(CEO), Anantnag, for the reasons which are not discernable to this court, came forward with a so called speaking consideration order No. CEO/A/Legal/33/553-56/19 dated 03.04.2019 evaluating the case of the petitioner viz-a-viz the challenge of the respondent No.6 with respect to appointment as ReT for Middle School ( later on up graded to Primary School) Sudurana Pushroo, Anantnag.
11. Instead of taking the controversy to its logical conclusion as to whether the original appointment of the petitioner is to be salvaged or is to suffer rejection so as to let the appointment of the respondent No. 8 Jawaza Akther as contemplated in terms of newspaper published order of 22nd February 2014 issued by the office of the Chief Education Officer, Anantnag, the Chief Education Officer (CEO), Anantnag, came forward with a long drawn six pages order dated 03.04.2019 citing every reference worth imagination in the order but lastly registering a handicap in taking a call on account of closure of ReT scheme under a Government Order No. 919-Edu of 2018 dated 16.11.2018.
12. It is this order No. CEO /Legal/33/553-56/19 dated 03.04.2019 which left the petitioner with prospect of losing his vested appointment as ReT, and, therefore, to come up with the present writ petition.
13.This Court finds that neither the petitioner nor the respondent No. 8-Jawaza Akhtar are averse to the merit based outcome of the exercise as to which of the two is entitled to the appointment as ReT.
14.Petitioner was actually appointed but later appointment came to be kept on hold whereas the respondent No. 8 was a replacement appointee expected to be appointed.
15. This situation take this Court to clause (i) of Government Order No. 919-Edu of 2018 dated 16.11.2018 as to whether Government Order No. 919-Edu of 2018 dated 16.11.2018 applies in terms of ReT closure to the case in hand or is a case of already appointed ReT who is to be continued to be governed under Government Order No. 396-Edu of 2000.
16.Mr. Syed Musaib, learned Dy AG very vehemently submits that the since the entire issue relating to closure of Rehbar-e- Taleem scheme is before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the form of SLP No. 21277/2023 titled as UT of J&K Vs. Saba Wani, as such, this Court shall stay its hand off from adjudicating the present writ petition.
17.This Court is surely not adjudicating the merits and demerits of claim and counter claim of the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 8 in the context of the appointment. What this Court is undertaking is to call upon the Chief Education Officer, Anantnag to take a clear call as to out of two i.e. petitioner as well as respondent No. 8, who is the deserving candidate whose claim should have carried the course in the sense whether the appointment of the petitioner is to stay or the appointment of the respondent No. 8 is to take place.
18.This situation is excepted in terms of clause (i) of Government Order No. 919-Edu of 2018 dated 16.11.2018, and, therefore, this Court is under no iota of confusion that the Chief Education Officer(CEO), Anantnag deserves to be directed to come up with a clear cut finding/decision in the matter and not to take refuge under Government Order No. 919-Edu of 2018 dated 16.11.2018. Of course, outcome of an exercise to be done by the Chief Education Officer (CEO), Anantnag may, perhaps, remain subject to the outcome of Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India but nevertheless, the Chief Education Officer, Anantnag is duty bound to decide on merits the controversy and come up with an answer.
19. Writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.
20. Needful exercise to be done by the Chief Education Officer, Anantnag within a period of four months from the date of pronouncement of this judgment.
(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 23.10.2024 "S.Nuzhat"