Hafiz Raza And Another vs Shaleen Kabra And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 997 j&K

                                                                 Sr. No. 11
     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT JAMMU

                                                        CPSW No. 354/2016

Hafiz Raza and another                           .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)

                        Through:-    Mr. S. S. Ahmed, Mr. Sayed Majid
                                     Shah, Mr. Aleem Beigh and Mr.
                                     Zulkarnain Chowdhary, Advocates.

                  V/s

Shaleen Kabra and others                                  .....Respondent(s)

                        Through:-    Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG.

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
                                  ORDER

The respondents in this compliance report have placed on record

speaking Order No. ZEOM/21/977-78 dated 01.01.2022 rejecting the

claim of the petitioners. The claim of the petitioners has been rejected in

view of the RET Scheme vide Government Order No. 919-Edu of 2018

dated 16.11.2018. As per Clause-II of Government Order No. 919-Edu of

2018, all advertisement notices for engagement of 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cancelled/withdrawn as ab-initio.

The judgment dated 16.05.2016, the compliance of which has been

sought, had only directed the respondents to complete selection process

and issue engagement orders in favour of the selected candidates in order

of merit without any further delay, in case there is no legal impediment.

There was no direction to consider the case of the petitioners and pass any

order.

The respondents instead of complying the judgment/order dated

16.05.2016 have relied on Government Order No. 919-Edu of 2018 dated

16.11.2018 to reject the claim of the petitioners. The closure of ReT

Scheme has also been challenged by the number of petitioners in a batch

of petitions decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in SWP

No. 3004/2018 titled Ruksana Jabeen vs State of J&K and others. The

Hon'ble Division Bench while upholding the constitutional validity of the

Government order, has issued certain directions regarding its impact on

pending litigations. The case of the petitioners is squarely covered by

Para-31(ii) of this judgment. Para-31 of the judgment being relevant is

reproduced as below:-

31. We have heard both the sides at some length on the impact of the Government order on the pending litigation and we cull out our conclusion as under:

(i) That the impugned Government order will not affect the select panels prepared by the respondents which have been acted upon and formal orders of engagement have been issued;

(ii) That the impugned Government Order will not override or effect the judgments passed or to be passed by this Court holding a candidate/candidates entitled to engagement in the selection process which was/is under challenge before the Court;

(iii) Where the select panels are approved and the aggrieved party has approached the Court before it could be acted upon, shall also be not affected by the impugned Government order, in that, but for litigation in the Court, the approved panel/panels could have been acted upon and formal letters of engagement in favour of the selected candidates issued prior to the issuance of the impugned Government order; and,

(iv) Notwithstanding issuance of the impugned Government order, the respondents shall abide by the judgments passed by any competent Court of law which have attained finality. However, the writ petitions involving adjudication of disputes in respect of tentative merit lists or tentative select panels shall be liable to be dismissed in view of the impugned Government order, in that, it would not be permissible for a

Court of law to direct the respondents to finalize the tentative merit lists or tentative select panels and issue engagement orders in view of closure of the scheme and a clear stipulation contained in paragraph 2nd of the impugned Government order.

The compliance report as well as consideration order passed by

respondent No. 3 & 4 is not according judgment/order dated 16.05.2016

and also not covered by Government Order dated 16.11.2018, therefore,

the same is rejected.

In the interest of justice before proceedings further, the

respondents are granted some more time to file fresh compliance in terms

of judgment dated 16.05.2016 within a period of for weeks.

During the pendency of this contempt petition, the respondents

have been transferred. Accordingly, the petitioners may lay a motion for

impleading the new incumbents as party respondents.

List on 29.07.2023.

(Sindhu Sharma) Judge

Jammu:

17.05.2023 Ram Murti