Sonia Sharma vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 146 j&K

                                                                      S. No. 209
                                                                     After Notice

                HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                           AT JAMMU

                                                   LPA No. 21/2020
                                                   CM No. 696/2020



Sonia Sharma                                                   .....Appellant(s)

                  Through :- Mrs. Surinder Kour, Sr. Advocate with
                             Mr. R. C. Sharma, Advocate

                          V/s

Union Territory of J&K and others                            .....Respondent(s)

                  Through :- Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG for R - 1 to 5.
                             Mr. Ashish Sharma, Advocate &
                             Mr. Munish Kumar Sharma, Advocate for R-6.


CORAM :

      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE

                                    ORDER

18.02.2021 Per:Thakur-J

01. The instant Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the

judgement and order dated 14.01.2020 passed in SWP No. 2691/2010, whereby

the petition has been dismissed.

Briefly stated the material facts are as under:-

02. The appellant herein responded to an advertisement notification

dated 25.04.2009 for the post of ReT in the stream of Maths for village

Shahpur Manyalan. While the appellant is stated to have made up the merit, her

case was rejected for appointment primarily on the ground that on the date of

the advertisement notification, she was not a resident of the said revenue

village, which was a condition precedent for such an engagement.

03. Needless to say that it was private respondent No. 6 herein, who had

objected the placement of the appellant at Sr. No. 1 of the merit panel on the

ground that the petitioner/ appellant herein had ceased to be a resident of the

said village, where the appointment was sought to be made on account of her

marriage to one Atinder Kumar Sharma, who was the resident of a different

revenue village. On that account, respondent No. 6 herein got appointed as ReT

vide order dated 11.11.2010 and during the pendency of the writ proceedings

completed five years of service as ReT and has also been stated to be

regularized as a General Line teacher.

04. It was precisely the aforementioned order, which gave a cause of

action to the appellant to challenge the same by way of SWP No. 2691/2010,

wherein the case set up by the petitioner was that despite her marriage in the

year 2007, the petitioner had continued to reside with her father in the same

village, where the school is situated. The explanation given was that the father

of the petitioner was a paralytic patient and had nobody to look after him and

since the younger brother of the petitioner was also mentally retarded, it had

become necessary for the petitioner to continue to reside with her father even

after her marriage. With a view to support this fact, the petitioner placed

reliance upon a copy of the will, in which it is reflected that the father of the

petitioner was ill and after recovering from his illness he would get the whole

land transferred in the name of the petitioner. An affidavit was also placed on

record duly sworn by the petitioner that he had transferred some portion of the

land in favour of the petitioner. Reliance has also placed upon a copy of the

mutation dated 04.09.2009 attested in favour of the petitioner.

05. Objections were filed to the writ petition by the official respondents,

in which a stand was taken that the petitioner was ineligible on account of her

marriage and residence in a different revenue village. It was stated that the

members of the Selection Committee in those circumstances asked the

petitioner to deposit the Permanent Residence Certificate (PRC) of her husband

of village Shahpur, which the petitioner failed to submit and, therefore, as a

necessary consequence the name of the petitioner was excluded and a fresh

panel prepared, selecting and appointing the private respondent No. 6 as ReT in

the stream of Maths.

06. It was also stated that the certificate furnished by the petitioner

issued by the Tehsildar vide his office No. M/1184 dated 03.02.2010 would be

of no avail to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu

had already issued a circular dated 01.06.2010, restrainaing the Tehsildars of

Jammu Division not to issue any PRC in favour of anybody on the format

whatsoever by adopting any procedure which is outside the procedure laid

down under law. The stand of the official respondents was that the candidate

ought to have been „actually residing‟ in the village/habitation, where the

school was situated, which was the spirit of the ReT Scheme as conceptualized

vide Govt. Order No. 396-Edu of 2000 dated 28.04.2000.

07. The writ Court vide judgment and order impugned however

dismissed the writ petition primarily on the ground that the story projected by

the petitioner/appellant herein that he had continued to reside with her father in

village Shahpur Manyalan despite her marriage in the year 2007 was not

supported by any cogent documentary evidence and that the documents placed

on record by the petitioner were nothing but an attempt to bolster her case by

sheer manipulation.

08. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

09. A lot of emphasis was placed by the learned senior counsel for the

appellant on the mutation dated 19.08.2009. This document clearly was

prepared as late as on 04.09.2009, much after the last date of the advertisement

notification, which was issued as early as on 25.04.2009. The document in the

shape of a will although dated 07.08.2008 is prior to the advertisement also

does not inspire any confidence with regard to the legitimacy of the claim of

residence the petitioner.

10. Moreover, it appears that an enquiry was got conducted by the writ

Court vide order dated 24.11.2010 with regard to the residential status of the

petitioner pursuant to which a report was submitted by the CEO, Rajouri,

which is on record. The enquiry report reads as under:-

             "    ...................................
                  ...................................
             Observations:-
                  (01)      That, majority of inhabitants stated that Smt. Sonia

Sharma, D/o Bala Ram has been married to a person resident of village Dassal (Rajouri) well before the issuance of Advt. Notice for RET poste in Govt. M/S Shahpur. She is residing in her in-laws house at Dassal.

(02) That, we the committee members also visited personally the said house of Mr. Bala Ram, F/o Sonia Sharma

and observed that condition of the same house does not seem to be a permanent residential house.

Conclusion:

On the basis of above mentioned observation the enquiry committee came to the conclusion that Sonia Sharma is not permanently residing at Shahpur village and occasionally used to visit there. Written statements are attached here with the report for your ready reference. Copy of report along with nine(9) leaves enclosure appended herewith for favour of perusal of Hon‟ble High court.

........................."

11. Having considered the entire matter, we cannot persuade ourselves to

take a view different from one taken by the writ Court. This appeal is found to

be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected

application.

                                               (Puneet Gupta)                  (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)
                                                    Judge                             Judge
            JAMMU
            18.02.2021
            (Muneesh)




MUNEESH SHARMA
2021.02.23 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document