Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Asha Devi vs State And Ors on 23 November, 2021
Sr. No. 7
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
LPA No. 111/2018
IA No. 1/2018 in
LPA No. 112/2018
IA No. 1/2018
Asha Devi .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate.
Vs
State and Ors. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA.
Ms. Surinder Kour, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Manpreet Kour, Advocate.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD AKRAM CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
ORDER
23.11.2021
(OPEN COURT)
Per:-Thakur-J
1. Since the present Letters patent appeals bearing LPA Nos.
111/2018 and 112/2018 arise out of a common judgment and order,
whereby writ petitions bearing SWP Nos. 812/2014 and 3565/2014 have
been dealt with, therefore, we propose to deal with the same by way of a
common judgment.
Briefly stated, the material facts are as under:-
2. An advertisement was issued by the Chief Education Officer, Reasi,
inviting applications from the eligible candidates for two posts of
Rehbar-e-Taleem (hereinafter referred to as the "RET") Teachers for New
Primary School, Upper Bhambla falling in District Reasi. A Panel was
prepared, in which Reeta Sharma (respondent No. 6) figured at Serial No. 1,
Sunil Sharma (respondent No. 7) in LPA No. 112/2018 figured at Serial No. 2
and Asha Devi (Appellant herein) figured at Serial No. 3. The orders of
appointment were issued in favour of the aforementioned respondent Nos. 6
and 7, who joined in November, 2010. Due to the unauthorized absence of
respondent No. 6, namely, Reeta Sharma, the Deputy Commissioner, Reasi
passed an order dated 03.03.2014, terminating her services w.e.f.
01.09.2012.
By virtue of the same order, the Deputy Commissioner, Reasi
ordered engagement of the next candidate in the panel, i.e., the appellant
(Asha Devi). The appellant, thus, came to be engaged as an RET Teacher in
the aforementioned School by virtue of order dated 03.03.2014 and
submitted her joining report somewhere in March 2014 itself.
3. In the writ petition bearing SWP No. 812/2014, the petitioner,
namely, Neha Sharma sought a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the order
dated 03.03.2014 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Reasi, by which
directions were issued for appointment of private respondent No. 7, appellant
herein, for Primary School, Bhambla. The petitioner also sought Certiorari
against the order of appointment dated 05.03.2014 issued by the Chief
Education Officer, Reasi, by virtue of which the appellant was permitted to
join provisionally as RET in the said School. A writ in the nature of Mandamus
was also sought for purposes of directing the official respondents to re-
advertise the post of RET for the said School.
4. The main ground in the writ petition was that no such direction for
appointment of the appellant could have been ordered, inasmuch as, the life
of RET panel prepared had since expired and that the post had to be
re-advertised.
5. It was urged before the Writ Court that according to the scheme of
RET, the select panel had a life of only six months from the date of issuance
of the engagement order, which had since expired in May, 2011.
6. In the writ petition bearing SWP No. 3565/2014, the petitioner,
namely, Asha Devi, (appellant herein) sought issuance of Writ of Certiorari for
quashing the panel dated 13.03.2010, prepared by the Zonal Education
Officer, Reasi, insofar as it incorporated the name of respondent No. 6 (Reeta
Sharma) in the writ petition on the ground that she was not entitled for
engagement as RET on 09.11.2010, as the aforementioned respondent No. 6
had solemnized her marriage on 03.11.2010 and was physically residing in
District Ropar in the State of Punjab. Relief was also sought for terminating
her services w.e.f. 22.01.2013 in view of the Government order No. 230-Edu.
of 2007 dated 27.06.2007.
7. Both the aforementioned writ petitions came to be considered by
the Writ Court and were decided by virtue of the judgment and order
impugned dated 31.05.2018. Hence, the present appeals.
8. Insofar as the writ petition filed by Neha Sharma bearing SWP No.
812/2014 is concerned, the same was allowed and the order of engagement
of the appellant, namely, Asha Devi dated 03.03.2014 was quashed. A
further direction was issued to notify the vacancy of RET in Primary School,
Bhambla, that had become available due to termination of the services of
Reeta Sharma (respondent No. 6 herein) due to her unauthorized absence.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that the said
Neha Sharma (writ petitioner in SWP No. 812/2014) was, in fact, a resident
of some other village and was married to respondent No. 7, namely, Sunil
Sharma in the month of October, 2013.
10. It was also stated that in the process of selection conducted
pursuant to Advertisement Notice dated 19.02.2010, Neha Sharma was
neither eligible nor had ever participated for selection.
11. It was urged that it was respondent No. 7, namely, Sunil Sharma,
who had managed the writ petition through his wife (Neha Sharma) with a
view to challenge the order of engagement of the appellant as a counterblast
with a view to ensuring that both the posts of RET for the said School at
Bhambla may be occupied by the same family. It is not out of place here to
mention, as was urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that Reeta
Sharma, whose appointment was cancelled in 2014 is the real sister of
respondent No. 7 (Sunil Sharma) and Neha Sharma is the wife of the said
respondent No. 7.
12. Another important aspect, that has been highlighted during the
course of arguments is that the RET Scheme has since been closed and any
direction, as has been issued by the learned Single Judge for purposes of
re-advertisement may not be sustainable. While on a question of law, it may
be correct to say that after a candidate joins against a post, either resigns or
his services are terminated beyond the life of the panel, the only course open
is to re-advertise the post, making it possible for all the eligible candidates to
then apply for the said vacancy. However, in the present case, we feel that
the petition filed by the petitioner, namely, Neha Sharma would not lead to
any favourable result for her, as she would never be considered for
engagement in view of the closure of the RET Scheme. The only person, who
would be prejudiced severely in the present scenario would be the appellant,
who is said to be a graduate and is stated to be unemployed. The appellant
no doubt had applied in the year 2010 and figured in the select panel. Her
ouster, at this stage, in our opinion, would cause severe prejudice to her
interest, as she would be on the verge of becoming overage. Directing the
ouster of the appellant at this stage, in our opinion, would not serve the ends
of justice and upholding the judgment on a point of law, on the other hand,
would not confer any benefit at all on the respondent, namely, Neha Sharma.
13. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow the appeal bearing
LPA No. 111/2018 and set aside the judgment and order dated 31.05.2018 to
the extent writ petition bearing SWP No. 812/2014 was allowed. The
appellant would be entitled to continue as RET in terms of order of
engagement dated 03.03.2014.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant does not
want to press the LPA No. 112/2018, which is consequently dismissed as
withdrawn.
(MohdAkram Chowdhary) (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)
Judge Judge
Jammu
23.11.2021
Ram Krishan
Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No
