Shahid Ahmad Padroo (Aged 29 ... vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir
2023 Latest Caselaw 1323 j&K/2

 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                AT SRINAGAR

                                              Reserved on: 21.09.2023
                                              Pronounced on: 13.10.2023.
                                          SWP No. 607/2008 and
                                          SWP No. 555/2008



SWP No. 607/2008


  1. Shahid Ahmad Padroo (Aged 29 years)
     S/o Mohammad Shaban Padroo
     R/o Banderpora Tehsil and District
     Pulwama

  2. Shagufta Masood (Aged 25 years)
     D/o Masood Ahmad Bandh
     R/o Banderpora Tehsil and District
     Pulwama.

                                                            .....Petitioners.

                     Through: Mr. G.N. Shaheen, Advocate.


                Vs


  1. State of Jammu and Kashmir
    through Commissioner-cum-
    Secretary to Government
    Department of Education Civil
    Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu.

  2. Director School Education Kashmir,
    Srinagar.

  3. Chief Education Officer, Pulwama.

  4. Zonal Education Officer, Tahab
    Pulwama.

  5. Manzoor Ahmad Bandh S/o Abdul
    Gani Bandh R/o Banderpora.

  6. Mohammad Khalil Bandh present
    Minister of Works State of Jammu
    and Kashmir.

  7. Arshid Ahmad Padroo S/o Ghulam
    Hassan Padroo R/o Banderpora
    Tehsil and District Pulwama
                                   2            SWP nos. 607/2008 & 555/2008




                                                        ..... Respondent(s)


                     Through: Mr. Mr. Faheem Shah, GA for R 1 to 4.
                              Mr. R.A. Khawar, Advocate with Mr. Aabid
                              Hamid, Advocate for R 5 to 7.
SWP No. 555/2008


  1. Shahid Ahmad Padroo (Aged 29 years)
     S/o Mohammad Shaban Padroo
     R/o Banderpora Tehsil and District
     Pulwama

  2. Shagufta Masood (Aged 25 years)
     D/o Masood Ahmad Bandh
     R/o Banderpora Tehsil and District
     Pulwama.

                                                            .....Petitioners.

                     Through: Mr. G.N. Shaheen, Advocate.


                Vs


  1. State of Jammu and Kashmir
    through Commissioner-cum-
    Secretary to Government
    Department of Education Civil
    Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu.

  2. Director School Education Kashmir,
    Srinagar.

  3. Chief Education Officer, Pulwama.

  4. Zonal Education Officer, Tahab
    Pulwama.

  5. Manzoor Ahmad Bandh S/o Abdul
    Gani Bandh R/o Banderpora,
    Pulwama.

  6. Mohammad Khalil Bandh present
    Minister of Works State of Jammu
    and Kashmir.
                                                        ..... Respondent(s)


                     Through: Mr. Mr. Faheem Shah, GA for R 1 to 4.
                              Mr. R.A. Khawar, Advocate with Mr. Aabid
                              Hamid, Advocate for R 5 & 6.
                                      3              SWP nos. 607/2008 & 555/2008




Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE


                                 JUDGMENT

1. The issues involved in the instant petitions are akin and

analogous to each other, as such, are disposed of by this

common judgment.

FACTS

 An advertisement notice came to be issued by the respondent

4 herein for filling up the available vacancies of Teachers in

Village Banderpora, Tehsil and District Pulwama under Sarva

Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) fixing the last date of receipt of

applications as 10.03.2004. The petitioners herein claim to

have applied for consideration against the posts in question

whereafter panel is stated to have drawn by the official

respondents as follows:

(i) Bashir Ahmad Padroo S/o Ghulam Hassan padroo (10+2)

(ii) Mohammad Shafi Bandh S/o Ghulam Ahmad Bandh (10+2)

(iii) Zahoor Ahmad Mir S/o Ghulam Rasool Mir (10+2)

(iv) Shahid Ahmad Padroo S/o Mohammad Shaban Padroo (10+2)

(v) Shagufta Masood D/o Mohammad Shaban Padroo (10+2)

 One Manzoor Ahmad Bandh/respondent 5 herein have filed a

petition being SWP no. 706/2005 before this court against the

selection process undertaken by the official respondents qua 4 SWP nos. 607/2008 & 555/2008

the posts in question wherein the impugned selection process

came to be quashed by this Court on 19.04.2006 with a

direction to the official respondents to conduct fresh selection

process.

 Two appeals being LPA no. 227/2006 and LPA no. 352/2006

came to be preferred by above named Manzoor Ahmad Bandh/

respondent 5 herein and one Zahoor Ahmed Mir against the

judgment dated 19.04.2006 passed in SWP no. 706/2005

(supra) which appeals came to be disposed of by the Division

Bench on 20.02.2008 in terms of the following directions:

(i) Application of Manzoor Ahmad Bandh for the post of RT Guide is held to be filed within prescribed time.

(ii) ZEO concerned of the relevant time is found to have refused to receive application of Manzoor Ahmad Bandh with the bonafide intention as spelled out in the communication addressed to Director School Education, Kashmir referred hereinabove.

(iii) Judgment impugned ordering re-initiation of the whole selection process as well as selection process ordered to be conducted by Chief Education Officer, is set aside.

(iv) The panel as has been preferred by the ZEO concerned shall be re-

framed within one month from the date of order after considering requisite merit/qualification of Manzoor Ahmad Bandh along with the candidates who figure in the already prepared panel.

 Pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench dated

20.02.2008 (supra), the official respondents drew a fresh panel

reflecting therein following candidates:

                                        5                 SWP nos. 607/2008 & 555/2008




     (i)     Bashir Ahmad Padroo
     (ii)    Zahoor Ahmad Mir
     (iii)   Shahid Ahmad Padroo
     (iv)    Shagufta Masood
     (v)     Manzoor Ahmad Bandh.

2. Aggrieved of the reframing of the panel pursuant to the

judgment of the Division Bench, the petitioners herein

preferred SWP no. 555/2008 before this Court impleading

besides official respondents therein also impleaded said

Manzoor Ahmad Bandh as respondent 5 and Mohammad

Khalil Bandh, the then Minister of Works, State of Jammu and

Kashmir as respondent no. 6 and prayed therein following

reliefs:

(i) Commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to make the selection process on the post of teachers under SSA scheme in Government School, Banderpora Pulwama in strict compliance of the SSA scheme prevalent in the State and the respondents 1 to 4 directed to accord due consideration to the petitioners and taking into account their higher qualification i.e. the merit of their graduation and B.Ed courses while finalizing the selection process.

(ii) Commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to select and appoint the petitioners on the post of teachers in the Government School Banderpora Pulwama on the basis of their merit qualification and suitability.

(iii) Respondents 1 to 4 be also commanded not to abuse the selection process in question and be restrained from restricting the selection process on the basis of eligibility criteria i.e 10+2.

The aforesaid reliefs came to be prayed in the petition

(supra) by the petitioners on the premise that the petitioner 1 6 SWP nos. 607/2008 & 555/2008

passed his matriculation examination in the year 1997, 10+2

examination in the year 2002 through Jammu and Kashmir

State Board of School Education and thereafter his BA general

course examination in the year December 2003-January 2004

through University of Kashmir and lastly passed his B.Ed

examination through University of Kashmir in the year 2006

and that the petitioner 2 passed her matriculation

examination in the year 1999, 10+2 in the year 2001, BA

general course examination in the year December 2004-

January 2005 as also B.Ed examination in the session April-

May 2006 and that the official respondents with malafide

design were bent upon to appoint respondent 5 herein through

political intervention excluding the higher qualifications and

merits possessed by the petitioners.

3. In the objections filed to the aforesaid petition, the official

respondents stated that in compliance to the directions passed

by the Division Bench, the respondent 5 herein came to be

included in the panel drawn by them on the basis of his merit

whereupon two meritorious candidates were recommended for

selection against which the petitioners objected to on the

ground that they are graduates and in the panel their

qualification has shown to be only 10+2 and that on

consideration of the objections, it transpired that the

petitioners have had acquired the higher qualifications after 7 SWP nos. 607/2008 & 555/2008

the cut- off date provided in the advertisement notice and that

the petitioner 1 was found to have qualified his graduation on

14.07.2004 being a re-appear case after the cut-off date

provided in the advertisement notice whereas petitioner no. 2

had qualified her graduation on 1.3.2005 after the cut-off date.

4. During the pendency of the petition SWP no. 555/2008

(supra), the petitioners herein preferred SWP no. 607/2008

after the official respondents reframed the panel and published

the same on 12.04.2008 and 22.04.2008 respectively reflecting

therein the respondents 5 and 7 in the petition-SWP no.

607/2008 to be the candidates found to have been meritorious

and eligible for appointment against the posts in question.

The said panel came to be objected by the petitioners herein by

filing objections, however, without waiting for the outcome of

the said objections, the petitioners preferred the writ petition-

SWP No. 607/2008 (supra) praying therein the following

reliefs;

(i) Commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to make the selection process on the post of teachers under SSA scheme in Government School, Banderpora Pulwama in strict compliance of the SSA scheme prevalent in the State and the respondents 1 to 4 be directed to accord due consideration to the petitioners and taking into account their higher qualification i.e. the merit of their graduation and B.Ed courses while finalizing the selection process.

(ii) Commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to select and appoint the petitioners on the post of teachers in the Government School 8 SWP nos. 607/2008 & 555/2008

Banderpora Pulwama on the basis of their merit qualification and suitability.

(iii) Respondents 1 to 4 be also commanded not to abuse the selection process in question and be restrained from restricting the selection process on the basis of eligibility criteria i.e 10+2.

5. Objections to the petition have been filed by respondents 1 to

4 as well as respondents 5 to 7 as well.

In the objections filed by the official respondents, it is

being specifically stated that in compliance to the orders

passed by the Division Bench, a fresh panel of eligible

candidates including that of respondent 5 herein came to be

framed whereafter upon considering the merit of all the

candidates including the petitioners herein, the respondents 5

and 7 herein came to be engaged in terms of order no.

CEO/Pul/08/1342 dated 12.5.2008, however, subject to the

directions/orders/final outcome of the writ petition.

It has been further stated in the objections that both the

selectees/appointees after putting in requisite period of service

as ReTs satisfactorily came to be converted as regular teachers

(Grade-II).

In the objections filed by the respondents 5 and 7, it is

being reiterated that the answering respondents came to be

engaged on 12.5.2008 by the official respondents after the

official respondents considered the merit of all the empanelled 9 SWP nos. 607/2008 & 555/2008

candidates including the petitioners herein and that the

petitioners' qualification of 10+2 rightly came to be taken into

consideration while considering them along with other

empanelled candidates for selection and appointment

excluding their BA qualification having been acquired by them

after the cut-off date of 10.03.2004.

It is also reiterated in the objections by the respondents 5

and 7 that after their appointments as ReTs, they came to be

converted as regular teachers (Grade-II) by the official

respondents and are as such continuously working against the

said posts.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

6. It is an admitted fact that the official respondent 4 issued the

advertisement notice inviting applications for filling up the

posts of ReTs under SSA scheme fixing the last date for receipt

of applications as 10.03.2004. The fact also remains that on

account of non-consideration of his candidature, the

respondent 5 instituted SWP no. 706/2005 before this Court

wherein judgment came to be passed on 19.04.2006 in favour

of the respondent 5.

Indisputably the said judgment dated 19.04.2006

became subject matter of two appeals, one filed by respondent

5 herein and the other by one Zahir Ahmed Mir being LPA Nos.

10 SWP nos. 607/2008 & 555/2008

227/2006 and 352/2006 which appeals came to be disposed

of on 20.02.2008 by the Division Bench, inter alia, on the

conclusion that the application filed by respondent 5 herein for

the post in question is held to have been filed within the

prescribed period requiring the respondent 4 to re-frame the

panel drawn by him considering the requisite

merit/qualification of respondent 5 along with the candidates

who figured in the already prepared panel including therein

the petitioners herein.

7. Perusal of the record tends to show that the official

respondents upon re-framing of panel pursuant to the

directions of the Division Bench dated 20.02.2008

recommended respondents 5 and 7 herein for appointment

against the posts in question on account of their superior

merit in 10+2 than the other empanelled candidates including

the petitioners herein consequently, appointed respondents 5

and 7 in terms of order dated 07.05.2008.

Record indisputably also reveals that petitioner 1 herein

had qualified his B.A. examination on 14.07.2004 after having

failed in Urdu subject whereas the petitioner 2 qualified B.A.

examination on 01.03.2005.

Further perusal of the record would reveal that the

petitioner 1 has secured 249/600 marks in the 10+2

examination whereas the petitioner 2 had secured 293/600 11 SWP nos. 607/2008 & 555/2008

marks in the 10+2 examination whereas, respondent 5 has

secured 333/600 marks in 10+2 and respondent 7 has

secured 325/600 marks in 10+2 examination.

8. In view of the aforesaid factual position, thus the petitioners

cannot be said to have a claim against the posts in question as

against the selection and appointment of respondents 5 and 7

for two fold reasons; firstly, that the petitioners indisputably

have inferior merit position than the respondents 5 and 7 in

10+2 examinations and secondly, graduation qualification of

the petitioners came to be acquired by them after the cut-off

date i.e 10.03.2004.

9. For what has been observed, considered and analyzed

hereinabove, there is no merit in the instant petitions.

Resultantly, the petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed

along with connected applications, if any.

(Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge SRINAGAR 13.10.2023 Naresh, Secy.

                 Whether the order is speaking:        Yes
                 Whether the order is reportable:      Yes/No