news details |
|
|
| HC quashed selection of 8 Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, July 24 -In a landmark judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir High today quashed the selection of eight Rehbar-e-Taleem teachers of District Udhampur with the direction to the respondents to prepare a fresh selection list on the basis of combined merit list prepared for both the villages for the year 2003, 2004 and 2005 and issue fresh appointment orders on the basis of merit.
Justice Sunil Hali, after hearing both the sides, observed that respondents were required to prepare a joint panel of vacancies in a Revenue village and they cannot be permitted to prepare separate panel for different villages. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have a better merit than the private respondents in the combined panel. Court finds force in the arguments of the counsels for the petitioner and accordingly allows this petition. The selection of eight private respondents is quashed with the direction to prepare a fresh select list on the basis of combined merit list prepared for both the villages for the year 2003, 2004 and 2005 and issue appointment orders on the basis of merit, the HC ordered. This exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of this order is served upon them. This landmark judgment was passed in a petition filed by Masood Ahmed and Others. The grievances of the petitioners are that appointment for the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem teacher was to be made from revenue village Thuroo while as the respondents had prepared two separate panels, one for village Thuroo (A) and another for Village Thuroo (B) which were in contravention of the notification issued by the Government.
Deputy Advocate General Neeru Goswami who appeared for the Education Department stated that appointments have been made village-wise and the petitioners have been considered in respect of their own village and could not be appointed. She placed on record a combined panel including the names of the candidates of village Thuroo (A) and village Thuroo (B). The merit position of the petitioners is admittedly higher than the private respondents, while assessing their merit on revenue village basis. However, their merits position on the basis of village-wise is lower than the private respondents. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
