news details |
|
|
| HC decides 100 petition challenging teachers' lists | | | Early Times Reporter
Jammu | Oct 18
With various observations and direction to the selection agency, Justice YP Nargotra of Jammu and Kashmir High Court today disposed off as many as 100 petitions challenging selection lists of teachers for six districts of Jammu province.
These petitions had challenged the selection lists on various grounds including selection criteria, adopted by the Service Selection Board is invalid. The candidate possessing higher qualification M.Ed, B.Ed, Post Graduation having been ignored and candidates possessing 10+2 qualification have been selected. Weight-age has been given to the qualification done in specialized fields like BSc Agriculture, Engineering, which qualification no relevance to the job of a teacher. The candidates who were already in service have been selected and meritorious candidates have not been selected whereas candidates who had obtained lesser merit selected.
Justice YP Nargotra after hearing battery of lawyers appearing for the petitioners, Additional Advocate General Mr. B S Salathia and Neeru Goswami Deputy AG appearing for the State and Education Dept and Advocate SK Shukla appearing for the SSRB observed that the J&K Selection Board by virtue of advertisement notice dated March 9, 1999 invited applications for the posts of teachers available in the District Cadre of various districts of the State. The essential qualification for the teacher was 10+2 with 50% marks and above. However bar of 50% marks was not applicable to graduates and above experience was also to be given preference and referred the judgment passed of a Division Bench and further observed that after perused the selection record produced by the council for the board and from the record the district wise merit position of the petitioners.
In the district Kathua selection it was submitted by the counsel for the board that petitioner Ritu Salathia is concerned she belongs to Jammu District competed for the post available in district Kathua in open category. Her merit is 55.86 as against 53.80 meant for last selected candidates. The reason for non-selection/ appointment, according to the counsel for the board that she was not selected because she was resident of District other than the district where the vacancy was available upon this Justice YP Nargotra said that the reason advanced is un-tenable in the eye of law because no discrimination can be legally made on the basis of place for the purpose of employment, the same being violative of the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of constitution any candidates having residence in any place in the state is entitled to compete and to consider for selection/appointment on a post anywhere available in the state. If he or she possessed requisite eligibility, therefore, in view of the Higher Merit obtained by the she legally deserved to be selected for appointment and had she been selected, the last candidate selected in the category would not have found birth in the select list. In this view of the matter claim of the petitioner Ritu Salathia is allowed by providing that in case there is any vacancy available than the petitioner shall be given appointment. However, if no vacancy is available than selection and appointment of the last candidate namely Parvesh Sharma figured at Sr. No 165 in open category district Kathua select list shall stand quashed and petitioner Ritu Salathia shall be appointed on the vacancy becoming available. The appointment of the petitioner shall date back to the date on which last selected candidate was appointed.
While dismissing the 100 petitions, except one of the petitioner, Justice YP Nargotra in the approved for reporting judgment observed that the selection of candidates having specialized qualification like BSc Agriculture and Engineering said that selection criteria does not make any distinction between the ordinary graduation level qualification or the graduation in specialized subject. Regarding the candidates who were already in service, Court observed that the contention of the counsel for the petitioners does not deserve to be entertained.
Justice YP Nargotra regarding the candidates in the category of disability observed that section 22 of J&K persons with disability (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1998 is that the Govt shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than 3% for persons of class of persons with disabilities of which 1% each be reserved for the persons suffering from blindness or low vision, hearing impairment locomotors disability or cerebral palsy in the posts identified for each disability provided the Govt may having regard to the type of work carried on in any dept or establishment by notification, subject to such conditions if any as may be specified in the such notifications exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.
Regarding the litigations after every selection Justice YP Nargotra observed that experienced shows that lot of litigations is generated because of the non-publication of the merit list of the unsuccessful candidates by the selection agencies. If the selection agencies published the merit position of all the competing candidates quite possibility, many of them may be not choose to litigate which on one hand would save the precious time of the Court while on the other save precious money of the litigants from being wasted. Court is sure that the selection agencies would certainly bestow some thought to the suggestion. With these observations Court also disposed of connected CMPs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
