news details |
|
|
| DB sets aside order of writ Court; orders disengagement of two teaching guides | | | JAMMU, AUGUST-16- A Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court Jammu wing comprising Justice Nirmal Singh and Justice YP Nargotra in an appeal filed against the judgment of the single Judge allowed the appeal and set-aside the judgment impugned with the direction that private respondents namely Prito Devi and Surinder Kour shall be disengaged forthwith and appellants Daljeet Kour and Talvinder Kour shall be appointed in their place as teaching guide. However, Court directed that private respondents shall be paid the salary for the period they have worked.
This significant judgment written by Justice YP Nargotra for the Division Bench observed that under the Rebar-e-Taleem, the candidates belonging to the village where the vacancy is available possess the preferential right of appointment over and above the candidates from the adjoining villages.
Adv Surinder Kour appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants belong to the same revenue village where the vacancies were available, as such had better right for appointment in comparison to private respondents. On the other hand Adv WS Nargal appearing for the private respondents submitted that as the appellants did not belong to the village as defined by the Division Bench of this Court in Zahida Bano's case, therefore, though they belong to the same revenue village yet they cannot be deemed to be belonging to the village where the vacancies are available. Therefore, according to the Adv Nargal, despite the fact that appellants merit is better than private respondents yet they have no right to be appointed over and above them.
DB after carefully considering the respective contentions of Adv Surinder Kour appearing for the appellants and Adv WS Nargal appearing for the private respondents observed that in view the appellants being higher in merit possessed better right of appointment in comparison to private respondents, for the reasons that the controversy prevailing with regard to the meaning of the word 'village' in the scheme at the time when judgment in Zahida Bano's case delivered has been set at rest by the Government itself by issuance of a Government order dated August 24, 2005. As has been admitted by the respondents Ward Nos 2 and 3 of Village Nihalpur Simbal Camp is part of Revenue Village Nihalpur, the entitlement of appellants to the appointments in view of their merit in place of private respondents cannot be validly disputed. Therefore, initially the appellants could not have legally been denied consideration for appointment; therefore, the Director School Education was right in canceling the appointment of private respondents. The Single Judge seems to have fallen in error by taking the expression village not meaning Revenue Village because counsel for the parties had not brought the Government order dated August 24, 2005 into the notice of the Court. For the reasons, DB allowed the appeal and set-aside the judgment impugned and directed that private respondents shall be disengaged forthwith and the appellants shall be appointed in their place. However, private respondents shall be paid the salary for the period they have work. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
