Rani Devi vs State Of J&K And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1753 j&K

                                                                          Sr. No. 24

        HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU

CJ Court

Case: LPA No. 45 of 2019

Rani Devi                                                .....Appellant/Petitioner(s)
                                Through :- Smt. Surinder Kour, Sr. Advocate with
                                           Sh. Sunil Kumar, Advocate.

                          v/s

State of J&K and others                                           .....Respondent(s)
                                Through :- Sh. Ravinder Gupta, AAG.
                                           Sh. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE

                                    ORDER

01. The appellant - Rani Devi has preferred appeal under Clause 12 of the

Letters Patent challenging the judgment and order dated 04.05.2018 passed by

the Writ Court dismissing SWP No. 1078/2017 'Rani Devi vs. State of J&K

and others' filed by the appellant as also order dated 04.02.2019 again passed

by the Writ Court dismissing the Review Petition (RPSW) No. 24/2018 filed

by the appellant against the earlier judgment.

02. The appellant in short has challenged the judgment and order passed by

the writ court as also the consequential order passed on the review petition.

03. A preliminary objection has been raised that the appeal is not

maintainable as the appellant had previously filed LPA No. 87 of 2018

challenging the judgment and order dated 04.05.2018 which was disposed of

with liberty to the appellant to seek review of order dated 04.05.2018. The

appellant was not granted any liberty to challenge the above order dated

04.05.2018 afresh.

-2- LPA No. 45 of 2019

04. It appears that in pursuance to the dismissal of the above appeal, the

appellant preferred review petition and the same was dismissed on 04.02.2019.

After dismissal of the review petition, the petitioner has again challenged the

order passed in the writ petition as well as the review petition by means of the

present Letters Patent Appeal.

05. Sh. Jagpaul Singh in support of the preliminary objections has relied

upon 'Green View Tea & Industries Versus Collector, Golaghat and another,'

(2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 109. In the said case before the Supreme

Court the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order of the High Court

in Special Leave Petition (SLP) but withdrew the same with liberty to pursue

the review petition in the High Court. After having lost in the High Court, he

again preferred leave to appeal by filing SLP, which was dismissed on the

ground that having withdrawn the earlier SLP, he could not have maintained a

fresh SLP. The Apex Court held that the petitioner cannot in the guise of

review petition be permitted to avail the remedy of Special Leave Petition

when the same was earlier dismissed.

06. In view of the above decision, the appellant having unsuccessfully

challenged the order passed by the writ court in appeal, cannot be permitted to

challenge it in the guise of challenging the order passed on the review petition.

07. On merits the dispute is regarding the post of Rehbar-e-taleem

advertised vide notice dated 26.05.2011 issued by the Chief Education Officer,

Kathua. The selection on the said post was required to be made on the basis of

a Revenue Village or the habitation.

08. The School where the teacher was to be appointed was established in

Partapkot which was part of the Revenue Village Janglote. Therefore, the issue

was whether Partapkot qualifies to be a habitation, for which it must be

-3- LPA No. 45 of 2019

established that it at a distance of 1 km from the other habitation and must have

a population of 300 souls. It is only on fulfillment of above twin conditions that

Partapkot could have been treated as a Habitation for the purposes of selection

of Rehbar-e-taleem.

09. The Deputy Commissioner, Kathua, who constituted a committee of

three senior members, reported that 'Partapkot would not fall within the

Habitation as it had population of 75 souls'.

10. The submission that Partapkot falls within Panchayat Patyari and,

therefore, population on of Patyari also ought to have been included, is totally

misconceived, as the selection was to be made on the basis of Habitation or on

the basis of Revenue Village. There was no need of making selection on the

Panchayat basis.

11. This apart, the Scheme of appointment of Rehbar-e-taleem had long

been abandoned and, as such, no new candidate is liable to be appointed.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the appeal is not

maintainable and otherwise also has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

                       (JAVED IQBAL WANI)                 (PANKAJ MITHAL)
                                  JUDGE                    CHIEF JUSTICE
JAMMU
27.12.2021
SUNITA