HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. SWP No. 2647 OF 2001 Sharda Devi Petitioners State and others Respondent !Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Abrol and Mr. Sachin Sharma ^Mrs. Neeru Goswami, Dy.AG. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gh. Hasnain Massodi, Judge Date: 01.01.2010 :J U D G M E N T :
The State Government vide Govt. order No. 396 of Edu 2000
dated 28.4.2000 accorded sanction to a scheme called RehbareTaleem
Scheme (hereinafter referred to as Scheme) intended to make
up the deficiency of staff at the elementary level of education. The
objectives of scheme were to promote decentralized management of
elementary education with the community participation and
involvement, to ensure accountability and responsiveness through
community supervision and to operationalize effectively the schooling
system at the grass root level. The Scheme provided for services of
teaching guides called RehbareTaleem
with a role for them to act as
a catalyst for quality education and to ensure overall development of
the personality of the children. The ultimate aim of the RehbareTaleem
Scheme was to secure universal enrolment and to check out
the school drop outs. The aforementioned Govt. Order is
comprehensive self contained and takes care of all aspects of the
Scheme including the role of village level committees, the eligibility
for the teaching guides or RehbareTaleem
proposed to be recruited,
their mode of selection, the honorarium to be paid to them and their
regularization on their satisfactorily completing five years period on
honorarium basis.
Zonal Education Officer, Zone Billawarrespondent
No. 4 vide
notice dated 28.8.2001 invited applications from eligible candidates
through respective village level committees for the RehbareTaleem
vacancies available in different primary and middle schools of zone
Billawar. The advertisement notice reproduced the eligibility criteria
for the advertised vacancies in consonance with the Scheme identified
the schools/ villages were vacancies were available and gave the
timeframe within which the applications were to be submitted. The
annexure to the advertisement notice serialized the schools as also the
number of vacancies therein proposed to be filled up.
The petitioners claim to have submitted applications for the
engagement as RehbareTaleem
in Middle School Niali and Middle
2
School Dhamlar respectively. However, the petitioners did not find
place in the selection list issued by the respondent No.3. Shri Ranjeet
Singh S/o Charan Singh R/o Dhamlarrespondent
No.5 herein was
selected for Middle School Raper village Dhamlar whereas Bushan
Kumar S/o Ishwar Dass also resident of Dhamlarrespondent
No.6
herein was selected as RehbareTaleem
for Middle School Niali. The
petitioners, aggrieved by their noninclusion
in the select list and
consequent appointment, have assailed the appointment of
respondents 5 and 6 as RehbareTaleem
made by respondent No.3
and sought its quashment. The petitioners also seek a direction to the
respondents to appoint the petitioners against the vacancies to be
available after the appointment of respondents 5 and 6 is setaside.
The petitioners edifice the writ petition on the grounds that though the
petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.5 belong to the same Morah
(Locality) and having regard to their place of residence were equally
placed to compete for the vacancy of RehbareTaleem
in Middle
School Niali, yet the petitioner No.1 had a superior right to be
appointed against the available vacancy as against the respondent
No5. on the ground that the petitioner No.1 had better academic
qualification as against the respondent No.5. It is pleaded that the
petitioner No.1 has done her graduation in Arts (B.A.) as also in
Education (B.Ed) and thus had an edge over the claim of respondent
No.5 to the vacancy who according to the petitioner No.1 had only
3
done Masters in Urdu. The comparative merit and technical
qualification, according to the petitioner No.1 made her a better
candidate for the aforesaid vacancy. The respondents are said to have
ignored the better academic qualification of the petitioner No.1 and
also the directions of this court in Balwinder Kour’s case. A good
teacher, it is averred, is backbone of society and a technically
qualified person being well equipped to work as a teacher has a
preferential right to be considered for appointment as RehbareTaleem
as against a candidate having no technical qualification. The
respondents are alleged to have acted arbitrarily and illegally while
ignoring the petitioner No.1 and selecting respondent No.5 to man the
post.
The challenge is thrown to selection of respondent No.6 as
RehbareTaleem
for Middle School Raper Village Dhamlar on the
ground that the respondent No.6 does not reside in the Morah
(Locality) where the Middle School, for which respondent No. 6 has
been selected as RehbareTaleem,
is situated. It is urged that the
underlying object of RehbareTaleem
Scheme is to ensure
accountability of the RehbareTaleem
and to attain the intended
object, the scheme provides that the RehbareTaleem
is to be drawn
from the local community so that the local community does not only
have a say in the selection but also exercises effective supervision. It
is pleaded that selection of respondent No.6 against the vacancy
4
available in the school of a Morah where respondent No.6 does not
reside runs against the fundamental principles of RehbareTaleem
Scheme.
The respondents 1 to 4 in their objections, which at the request
of the respondents are being treated as counter, refute the grounds set
out in the writ petition. The objections, after summarizing the salient
features of the Scheme, deny that the selection was made unmindful
of the merit of the aspirants for the vacant positions. The respondents
1 to 4 while admitting that the petitioners as well as respondents 5 and
6 were recommended for appointment as RehbareTaleem
against the
available vacancies, have insisted that having regard to the eligibility
criteria, merit and the academic qualification, the respondents 5 and 6
were selected for the available vacancies in the aforementioned
Middle Schools. The respondents 1 to 4 have denied that respondent
No.6 did not hail from the village where the vacancy was available. It
is insisted that the residence in the concerned village and not the
Morah/ Mohalla/ Pati is the requirement of Govt. Order No. 396 dated
28.4.2000.
The Government Order No. 396 dated 28.4.2000, as pointed
out, does not only deal with the aims and objectives of the Scheme
and the role the RehbareTaleems,
is intended to play in universal
enrolment and as catalyst for quality education, but also lays down the
eligibility criteria for appointment as a RehbareTaleem.
The
5
aforesaid Govt. Order provides for empanelment of a candidate from
the locality as RehbareTaleem
provided the candidate possesses the
minimum qualification of 10+2. The Government Order does not
provide for any preferential treatment to a candidate having academic
qualification higher than 10+2. The reason and rationale for the
eligibility criteria is not difficult to guess. It needs no emphasis that
RehbareTaleem
scheme was launched to meet the staff requirements
of Schools located in difficult, inaccessible and far flung areas where
the teachers posted from other places would not ordinarily attend their
duties regularly. Furthermore the scheme provides for making up the
deficiency in the school staff at elementary level. Be that as it may,
the academic qualification requirement under the RehbareTaleem
Scheme is 10+2 without any preferential superior right to the
candidates possessing higher qualification. Against the said backdrop
the claim made by the petitioner No.1 to a preferential right of
consideration for RehbareTaleem
vacancy in Middle School Niali as
against the respondent No.5 who admittedly has done Masters in Urdu
is not sustainable. There can be no disagreement that the State
Government vide Govt. Order No. 1503Edu
of 2003 dated 1.10.2003
has room for comparative assessment of the academic qualification of
aspirants for RehbareTaleem
vacancy and it is expressly provided
that a professional degree like B.Ed and M.Ed shall have an edge as
against a academic post graduate degree. However, the Govt. Order is
6
prospective in its operation and cannot be pressed into service by
petitioner No.1 to substantiate her claim. The advertisement notice, it
may be stated at the cost of repetition, was issued on 28.4.2000 and
the selection list prepared/ issued on 10.9.2001 i.e. much before the
Govt. Order No. 1503Edu
of 2003 dated 1.10.2003. The case set up
by the petitioner No. 1 thus does not find support from the pleadings
and the record.
The petitioner No.2 has based his claim on the place of
residence. If petitioner No.2 is to be believed the respondent No.6
does not hail from the place where the school, in which RehbareTaleem
vacancy was available, is situated. The case set up and the
arguments advanced at Bar in support of the case are made oblivious
to the real import of the Scheme. It is true that the Scheme lays
emphasis on the recruitment from the locality where he/ she has to
serve. The object is that the RehbareTaleem
is in a position to
perform the role and discharge the duties visualized under the RehbareTaleem
Scheme. The RehbareTaleem
Scheme nonetheless
provides for the “village” as the place of residence as against the
Mohalla, Morah, or Pati. In other words an aspirant for RehbareTaleem
vacancy should belong to the village where the vacancy is
sought to be filled up. The village level committee as visualized by
the Scheme is even empowered to draw up a panel from adjoining
village where no eligible candidate from within the village is
7
available. The emphasis thus is on the “village” and not on the sub
unit of the village like a Mohalla/ Morah. Having said so, it needs to
be noted that the case set up by the petitioner No.2 is belied by the
petition itself. The petitioner No.2 in the writ petition has given his
place of residence as Village Dhamlar Mohalla Miali Tehsil Billawar
District Kathua and the place of residence of respondent No.6 whom
the petitioner wants to dislodge, is village Dhamlar, Morah Dhamlar,
Tehsil Billawar. The petition thus itself indicates though both the
petitioner No.2 and respondent No.6 belong to the same village and
mere fact that the respondent No.6 does not hail from Morah Raper
does not in any manner brighten up chances of petitioner No 2’s case.
This apart even petitioner No.2 does not belong to Morah Raper as is
evident from the petition itself.
The State Govt. through Govt. Order No. 563Edu
of 2005
dated 24.8.2005 has set at rest thecontroversy, if any, as regards true
import of expression “Village” used in the RehbareTaleem
Scheme.
It stands clarified that the expression “village” used in the RehbareTaleem
Scheme and the subsequent instructions shall mean and
deemed to have always meant a revenue village.
So viewed the writ petition is devoid of any merit and liable to
be dismissed.
This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
8
(Gh. Hasnain
Massodi)
Jammu Judge
01.01.2010
Amjad lone