news details |
|
|
| Controversy over the appointment of Rahbar-e-Taleem Teacher | | DB directs appointment of appellant. private respondent | |
Jammu, January 8 : Division Bench of J&K High Court Jammu wing comprising Chief Justice BA Khan and Justice JP Singh in an appeal filed by a sitting teacher directed Commissioner /Secretary and Director Education Jammu to consider private respondent for appointment to the post of Rahbra-e-Taleem Teacher, which is said to be available at Gandhi Nagar and adjust appellant at Gandhi Nagar and private respondent to Malka Chak, so long as both candidates are accommodated in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Division Bench while deciding the controversy after hearing Advocate Radha Sharma appearing for the appellant and Advocates Abhinav Sharma and DS Chouhan appearing for the respondents observed that a lot of controversy has been going on resulting in litigation being brought before this Court, involving interpretation of word ‘belong’ occurring in the Rahbra-e-Taleem Scheme promulgated by the Govt on April 28, 2004. Course have taken different views interpreting this word one way or the other and the Division Bench of this Court has also taken the view that word ‘belong’ did not necessarily mean that the candidate should be resident of the village at the time of selection and recruitment. It was in this background that this Court asked the Govt to issue an explanation/definition of word ‘belong’ occurring in the scheme which has been done by the Govt and it has been clarified that a candidate to be appointed under the scheme should be actually residing in the village where the deficiency of the teacher is found at the time of appointment in the village.
The Division Bench held that this definition/interpretation/explanation would be operative prospectively and should pose no problem as far as any future selection/appointment was involved. But there are few cases pending which have been decided on the view taken by the Division Bench earlier which runs counter to the explanation of the Govt to the word ‘belong’.
The problem that arises is how to reconcile the proposition laid down by the Division Bench of the State High with the explanation issued by the Govt. It was in these circumstances that Govt was required to explore possibility of making available few posts (3 to5) which could be utilized to accommodate both candidates who have been excluded from selection and appointment on the interpretation of the word ‘belong’ and which found no affirmation on the view taken by some Courts, including the Division Bench of the State High Court. Thus the candidates in difference to the Court orders would have to be accorded consideration and accommodated also because otherwise they would be suffering vagueness of the terms of the scheme which sadly has generated litigations over the years and instead of providing employment has dragged educated youth to the Courts to contest their claims on abstract definition used in the scheme.
In the present case, the appellant has been already adjusted and is continuing in terms of interim orders passed by this Court, even though she belongs to an adjacent village of Sum which under the recent definition would have excluded her. The same would have been the fate of private respondent. With these observations the Division Bench disposed of this appeal by directing the commissioner/ secretary to Govt and Education Jammu to accommodate appellant and private respondent. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
