news details |
|
|
| After 6 years of litiga1ion former minister’s daughter looses Rs 1500 job | | HC quashes appointment, respondents asked to engage petitioner | | Early Times Reporter
Jammu, Sept 3: In an interesting case of favoritism for a petty favour, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court today ordered termination of the services of the daughter of a former Congress minister as a teaching guide popularly known as Rebar-e-Taleem. The Court held that woman was appointed by ignoring genuine claim of another eligible contender for the post which offers a remuneration of a paltry sum of Rs 1500.
The most interesting part of the case is that this legal battle has been going on since 2001. This reveals that the the ex-minister’s daughter and the respondent authorities who appointed her in arbitrary manner were so particular on retaining this post that the case stretched on for six long years. The seriousness of the government on protecting and upholding the wrong doing of the recruiting authorities can also be gauged from the fact that the case was defended by the state's Advocate General who assisted by many of his colleagues.
The appointment of the woman was challenged by one Kuldeep Raj who submitted before the court that the candidate did not belong to the village for which she was appointed as teaching guide. He said that being resident of that particular village and having highest qualification among the contenders he deserved the appointment but his claim was ignored by the authorities.
After hearing all arguments, Justice Nirmal Singh of J&K High Court quashed the appointment with the direction to official respondent to appoint petitioner Kuldeep Raj against the vacancy of teaching guide which existed in primary school, Karkala within a period of one month.
In a petition filed in 2001 Kuldeep Raj had challenged the appointment of daughter of ex-minister and seeking quashment on the various grounds including that the petitioner being the only available candidate in Village Dhoke was to be considered for appointment as Teaching Guide under the scheme against the post lying vacant in primary school Dhoke. But the official respondent appointed private respondent illegally and contrary to the provisions of the scheme. It is further stated that private respondent neither belongs to the said area nor had appeared for interview before the Village Level Committee of the said village; that the private respondent is residing in village Pallanwala and the said village does not fall within the purview of VLC of village dhoke. It is further stated that official respondents have wrongly shown the post lying vacant in primary school Karkala, which far away from village Dhoke, where as the post against which private respondent has shown to be selected belongs to primary school Dhoke. The petitioner has also alleged malafides against the official respondent by pleading that private respondent has been given the undue benefit being the daughter of an influential person. The petition came to be admitted on October 11 in 2001 for hearing.
Justice Nirmal Singh after hearing advocate PN Bhat appearing for the petitioner whereas Advcoate General AH Naik with Deputy AG N Goswami appearing for the state and Advocate PS Dutta appearing for the private respondents observed that after perusal of the application form as also the location wise merit list prepared by the Village Level Committee, shows that the entries in the documents have been made at later stage because if the candidate was BSc Final at the time of filling of application form than there was no need to mention the qualification of Higher Secondary-II in the said form. In the location wise merit list, the qualification of private respondent has been shown as BSc-II meaning thereby that at the time of preparing the merit wise list by the VLC, the private respondent had not qualified her BSc Final examination. This fact is further clear from the perusal of entry by Naib-Tehsildar on the back of application form of private respondent which stands notice above. This entry has been made on May 14, 2000 whereas the result of BSc Final examination of private respondent as per the mark-list attached was declared on July 25, 2000. Therefore, when the location wise merit list prepared by the Village Level Committee; the qualification has been shown as BSc-II than in the application form which was submitted earlier to the preparation of said list. The qualification could not have been shown as BSc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
