news details |
|
|
| DB uphold appointment of petitioner from EV to General Line teacher | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Aug 11: Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Comprising Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjay Dhar, while setting-aside the judgment of writ court, upheld the the engagement/appointment of the appellant as an Education Volunteer, Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher and General Line Teacher.
The appellant Shazia Bashir has challenged the judgment dated 30.10.2018 passed by the Writ Court in SWP No.410/2005 filed by respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner) whereby the said respondent had challenged the engagement of the appellant as Education Volunteer and her subsequent engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem teacher and General Line Teacher. Vide the impugned judgment and order dated 30.10.2018, the learned Writ Court has allowed the writ petition and the engagement of appellant as Education Volunteer and her subsequent engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem teacher as well as her appointment as General Line Teacher has been quashed.
The Division Bench observed that even if there is some minor irregularity in selection of a candidate but if such a candidate has put in a number of years of service, it may not be advisable to disturb his appointment.
While considering the facts of the instant case in the light of the aforesaid judicial precedents, DB observed that we have to bear in mind the fact that the appellant was engaged as an Education Volunteer in the year 2004 under EGS scheme which has since been abandoned. Upon conversion of EGS Centre into a Primary School, appellant's engagement was converted to Rehbar-e-Taleem teacher, as per the relevant scheme. Thereafter in the year 2014, the appellant came to be appointed as a General Line teacher in the said school. There is no dispute to the fact that the appellant has been engaged as an Education Volunteer and thereafter as Rehbar-e-Taleem teacher and General Line teacher by the competent authorities. We have also held that at the time of making engagement of the appellant as an Education Volunteer, substantial compliance to the guidelines has been made. In these circumstances, the equity tilts heavily in favour of the appellant.
Her case in equity becomes all the more strong in the light of the fact that the scheme under which the Education Volunteers were engaged has already been abandoned and even if we quash the engagement of the appellant, the writ petitioner cannot be engaged as an Education Volunteer under a scheme which has already been wound up. Thus, even if the case of the writ petitioner is accepted, no relief can be granted in her favour and it would amount to issuing a futile writ, which we are not inclined to do.
DB further observed that apart from the above, having served for many years, the appellant may have by now become over age and her family may be dependent upon her earnings. If her engagement is quashed at this point of time, she will have no other place to go and the quashment of her engagement will work very harshly against her dependents. As against this, the writ petitioner, admittedly, is working as an Anganwadi Worker and she cannot be appointed as an Education Volunteer as of now. Therefore, balance of equity tilts heavily in favour of the appellant. This aspect of the case has been totally ignored by the learned Writ Court while passing the impugned judgment.
With these observations Division Bench allowed the appeal and set-aside the judgment passed by Writ Court and ordered that the engagement/appointment of the appellant as an Education Volunteer, Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher and General Line Teacher is upheld. —JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
