Asgar Bhat vs State and Others

Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.—In compliance to the judgment dated 11.08.2011 passed in SWP No. 454/2006 titled Mohammad Asgar

Bhat v. State & Ors., respondent No. 4-Chief Education Officer, Anantnag, while according consideration to the case of the petitioner for his

engagement as Data Entry Operator (for short DEO) under SSA Scheme, has found his case to be devoid of merit. It is the said consideration

order dated 15.07.2013 which is under challenge in this writ petition. Selection of DEO's on contractual basis for monitoring of EMIS of

Education Sector of District Anantnag was challenged by medium of writ petition (SWP) No. 454/2006 by the writ petitioner which came to be

disposed of vide judgment dated 11.08.2011 with the following direction:

In view of the case set up in the petition and stand taken by learned counsel for parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to

respondents to accord consideration to the engagement of petitioner against the post of Data Entry Operator, stated to have become available due

to the resignation of respondent No. 14 and other selected candidates in accordance with rules. In the event the petitioner's age stands in his way

to get engaged, the respondents may also consider the relaxation of age bar in favour of the petitioner of course in accordance with rules. The

respondents in any case shall take a decision in the matter within four weeks from the date copy of the order is made available/served on the

respondents"".

In the disposed of writ petition while noticing that the post of DEO has become available due to resignation of respondent No. 14, aforesaid

direction has been passed. The respondent No. 4 instead of taking the decision within four weeks, as required in terms of judgment dated

11.08.2011, has taken two years and now after two years has passed the order dated 15.07.2013.

Bare perusal of the order is suggestive of the fact that the accord of consideration has been a casualty so as to show that the order has been

complied with. In the order impugned it is mentioned that to proceed ahead for considering case of the petitioner the technical certificates were not

found with the application form. The Incharge Records (Assistant Programmer under SSA) now working at State Project Office SSA as System

Analyst, was asked to hand over the relevant records vide communication dated 14.11.2012 who has handed over the records except the records

relevant to the case of the petitioner. Then matter was referred to then Technical member (DIO, Anantnag) on 12.12.2013 for having the opinion

who in turn requisitioned the basic application of the petitioner as well as his technical certificate, same has not been furnished. Then DIO/Technical

Member has intimated that he cannot opine in the matter Proceeding further the respondent No. 4 has observed that the technical merit awarded to

the petitioner and duly authenticated by the member of the Selection Committee does not leave any scope for the engagement of the petitioner.

Then has concluded that the office is not in a position to establish the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner in absence of the records

whereupon the said selection Committee has assigned merit position to the petitioner that does not give any edge to him over already engaged

candidates. The technical certificate submitted by the petitioner later on is not in line with the technical merit portrayed in the merit list drawn up by

the said selection committee, as such, status of such certificate is questioned. Finally has said that on due consideration claim of the petitioner was

not found of prevailing nature.

It is not clear as to how respondent No. 4 has concluded that the claim of the petitioner is not of the prevailing nature when he has not been able

to ascertain the actual position i.e., technical merit of the petitioner. The conclusions drawn by the respondent No. 4 in his order dated 15.07.2013

are not convincing. Matter has been hoodwinked so as to show that the order of the Court is complied with. The order, as such, is quashed.

Respondent No. 4-Chief Education Officer, Anantnag, is directed to proceed afresh in the matter in accordance with the directions as issued in

SWP No. 4534/2006 as quoted above and to conclude the process of accord of consideration and decision thereon within six weeks from the

date copy of the order is served upon him. In the process petitioner shall also be heard.

The respondent No. 4 owes an explanation as to why case of the petitioner was not considered and why decision was not taken within four

weeks as required in terms of order dated 11.08.2011, why it has taken him two years. Apparently, it suggests that the respondent No. 4 has not

shown seriousness towards the mandate of the order to the extent of according consideration and taking decision within four weeks. The

explanation in this regard be submitted within three weeks. Dependent on such explanation further course of action, as shall be warranted, will

follow. The petition is disposed of as above. Registry to maintain the index of the case along with copy of the order and to list the same in the week

commencing 7th July, 2014.