Ram Krishan Bhandari vs State and others

Nirmal Singh, J.—In pursuance to the RehbareTaleem Scheme (hereinafter called the Scheme), the petitioner applied for engagement as Teaching Guide in village Treshi. He, however, remained unsuccessful and has approached this court through the medium of present petition.

The case of the petitioner is that he being the resident of village Treshi which falls in revenue village Inderwal, applied for the post of teaching guide which was to be filled up in Government Primary School, Treshi. It is stated that vacancies were also available in Primary School, Karna and Primary School, Sewa, which also fall in revenue village Inderwal. These two adjoining villages i.e. Karna and Sewa, are said to be two different inhabitations and located at a distance of about 2 km from village Treshi where the petitioner resides.

The grievance of the petitioner is that even though he had applied for engagement as Teaching Guide for Primary School Treshi being the resident of the said village but he was also entitled to be considered for such engagement in the adjoining two villages i.e. Karna and Sewa as per the mandate of the Scheme. It is stated that the private respondents who have been engaged belong to far flung mohras of revenue village Inderwal, whereas, the petitioner who was a local candidate and was having a better merit and preferential right as per the Scheme, has been wrongly ignored by the respondent authorities. It is stated that the official respondents wrongly prepared a common panel by clubbing two villages i.e. Kharian and Treshi and similarly another common panel was prepared for two different villages i.e. Karna and Khatanpora. It is stated that the name of the petitioner figured at Sl.No. 3 in the common panel prepared for villages Kharian and Treshi and in the said panel the name of respondent No. 5 who stands appointed in Primary School, Treshi, has been placed at Sl.No. 2. It is stated that the respondent even though has been shown to be the resident of Buttpora but, infact, he is the resident of village Brahmanpora. Even otherwise, the distance of village Buttpora has been shown to be 2 kms from Primary School, Treshi, where the vacancy existed against which the respondent No. 5 stands engaged ignoring the claims of the petitioner who had a preferential right over and above the said respondent for being considered for engagement being the resident of village Treshi itself.

The further grievance projected by the petitioner is that in case the respondent No. 5 has been adjusted in Primary School, Treshi, even though he belonged to a different village, then the official respondents should have considered the claim of the petitioner for the vacancy which existed in adjoining village i.e. Primary School, Karna, as the distance of village Treshi where the petitioner resides is only 1/2 kms away from village Karna.

It is stated that the respondents 6 and 7 who have been engaged in Primary School, Karna, are the residents of village Passerkot, which is at a distance of about two and half kms from village Karna. So far as respondent No. 8 is concerned, it is stated that he has been adjusted, against the vacancy which existed in Primary School, Sewa, even though he belongs to village Maliknar which falls in revenue village Chatroo. It is thus stated that even against the vacancy which existed in Primary School, Sewa, the petitioner could have been selected and engaged as the distance of village Treshi is only 2 kms from Sewa and thus the petitioner was having better claim than private respondent No. 8 also. It is thus submitted by the petitioner that his claim regarding engagement as Teaching Guide under the Scheme have been wrongly ignored by the respondent authorities.

Official respondents in their counter have pleaded that revenue village Inderwal is having different habitations including Treshi, Karna and Sewa.

It is stated that petitioner is resident of village Treshi whereas Karna and Sewa are its adjoining villages. There were four vacancies available in these villages one each in Primary Schools, Treshi and Sewa and two in Primary School, Karna. For filling up these posts, selection was made in two different phases firstly in the year 2000 and then in 2003. In the selection which was conducted in the year 2000, the respondent No. 8 who belongs to village Chatroo came to be selected as no eligible candidate was available in village Inderwal. It is stated that the petitioner had not applied against the said post. So far as respondents No. 6 and 7 are concerned, they were also engaged against two vacancies available in Primary School, Karna in pursuance to a selection process which was held in the year 2000 and the petitioner was not a candidate who had applied in this selection also. Petitioner had submitted his application for being considered against one post available in Primary School, Treshi, which selection was conducted in the year 2003. In the said selection, respondent No. 5 being higher in merit than the petitioner was considered for engagement in Primary School, Treshi, by taking revenue village Inderwal as a one Unit where the said respondent resides. It is thus submitted that the petitioner cannot have any grievance.

To somewhat similar extent is the stand taken in the counter filed by the private respondents.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner, even though, cannot have any grievance so far as selection of private respondents 6, 7 and 8 are concerned because he had not applied for being considered in the said selection, but she has a definite claim so far as her selection against the post which was available in Primary School, Treshi, which selection was conducted in the year 2003 in which the petitioner had applied. A perusal of Annexure R.6, which is the joint panel prepared for Primary School, Kharian and Primary School, Treshi, the name of respondent No. 5 figures at Sl. No. 2 and that of the petitioner figures at Sl. No. 3. The merit of respondent No. 5 is though Sher than the petitioner but he has been shown to be the residence of village Buttpora and the distance of the same is shown to be 2 kms from Primary School, Treshi. The residence of the petitioner has been shown as village Treshi and the distance shown in the panel from the aforesaid school is 0 km. Thus, the petitioner is right in his submission that he being a local candidate has a preferential right of being considered for appointment as Teaching Guide in Primary School, Treshi, under the Scheme. The village in which respondent No. 5 resides even though falls under the revenue village Inderwal but admittedly respondent No. 5 cannot fall under the definition of local candidate as per the mandate of the Scheme as the school in the present case is located in village Treshi where the petitioner resides. As per the eligibility clause as prescribed in the Scheme, the candidate seeking consideration for engagement as Teaching Guide has to be a local candidate where there is deficiency of staff. It is only when there is a certification by the VLC to the effect that no local candidate is available, the candidate from the adjoining village can be selected. The respondent authorities have taken a stand that the respondent No. 5 has been selected on the basis of his higher merit taking the Inderwal as a revenue village, which stand cannot be accepted because the question of his being higher in merit can only be taken into consideration when there is no candidate available from Village Treshi where there is deficiency of staff. Because as per the Scheme, the engagement/appointment of teaching guide is to be made from amongst the panel to be prepared by the Village Level Committee of the area concerned where the school is located and where there is deficiency. Whosoever is higher in merit in the said panel is to be engaged as such. In case, no candidate is available from the particular village where the vacancy exists, then the zone of consideration for filling up the vacancy is shifted to nearby village which is not the case herein. In the case in hand, petitioner, as indicated above, is a local candidate of village Treshi where the school is situated and resides at a distance of 0 km from the school concerned as is apparent from the panel prepared by the authorities concerned, and therefore, rejection of his candidature on the basis of his being low in merit than private respondent No. 5, who belongs to a different village, is not as per the mandate of the Scheme, because, as indicated above, the merit position is to be determined from amongst the candidates who belong to the same village.

At this stage, it would be apt to notice that a Division Bench of this Court in LPA(SW) No. 215/07 titled Ranjit Singh v. State and ors, had directed the State Government for clarifying the position regarding the words "belong" and "local candidate" as existing in the Scheme. The State Government accordingly vide Government Order No. 394Edu of 2006 dt. 28t"" of July '06, has given following explanation :

""Explanation : The word "belong" and "local candidate" shall mean that the candidate to be appointed should be actually residing at the time of appointment in the village where the appointment is to be made.

In the present case also, there is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner is a local candidate of village Treshi where the vacancy exists.

He resides at 0 Km distance from the school concerned. Private respondent No. 5 who is shown to be resident of village Buttpora resides at a distance of 2 kms from the school concerned where the vacancy existed. Therefore, the rejection of candidature of petitioner on the basis of his being low in merit than private respondent No. 5 who is a resident of different village is not in accordance with the mandate of the Scheme.

For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is allowed. The selection and engagement of private respondent No. 5 is quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner as Teaching Guide for Primary School, Treshi, being a local candidate of village Treshi. Let this be done within a period of one month from the date, a copy of this order is made available to the respondent concerned by the petitioner. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all the consequential benefits minus monetary benefit.

Disposed of accordingly.

Petition allowed.