AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.—In the year 2000, Government launched a Scheme called 'Rehbari Taleem' by issuance of an executive order
No. 396 of Edu 2000 dated 28th April 2000. The purpose for launching of the said Scheme is delineated in the said government order itself. In
order to accomplish the purpose delineated under the scheme, Committees were constituted for empanelment of teaching guides (Re-Ts) and
selection Committees were constituted for making selection of the eligible meritorious candidates for being engaged as teaching guides.
In pursuance of the said scheme panels were drawn by the concerned Village Level Committee(s) for various schools of the District Budgam.
A deficiency was assessed in Primary School Lachmanpora, zone Hardu punzoo.
Petitioner was empanelled for being selected and engaged as teaching guide(Re-T) in the aforesaid primary school.
It is stated that School has been upgraded to the level of Middle School.
The panels drawn at that point of time, were ordered to be kept on hold by Deputy Commissioner Budgam, on the ground, that the posts which
were required to be filled up for making engagement of teaching guides were to be utilized for adjusting the persons who were working as teachers
under Operation Black Board Scheme (OBBS).
As the panels drawn by various village level committee(s) were not acted upon in view of the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, some 18
persons approached this Court and filed writ petition which was registered as SWP No. 860/03. It was specifically pleaded in that writ petition
that OBB Scheme is separate and distinct scheme than that of Re-T Scheme. It was also pleaded that SSA and OBB schemes are centrally
sponsored Schemes, and the RT Scheme was launched by State Government and Petitioners right to seek consideration for selection/engagement
could not be thus be fettered by making appointments under the Operation Block Board Scheme.
The court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 13th June 2003 directing the Respondents to take a decision in the matter. When the
judgment was not implemented, contempt petition was filed. The contempt petition was disposed of vide order dated 20th April 2006. Perusal of
the said order reveals that ld counsel appearing for the state made some submissions about the availability of posts for engagement/appointment of
Petitioners therein.
The Respondents passed an order in pursuance to the orders of the court passed in SWP No. 860/03. The subject matter of the said order was
selection of Re.T candidates in various schools of district Budgam. Thus the Petitioners in SWP No. 860/03 who were still awaiting their
adjustment as teaching guide were engaged by the above referred order passed in the year June 2006.
The Petitioner claimed to be similarly circumstanced with the Petitioners of SWP No. 860/03 filed this petition seeking same treatment and
further prayed that she be treated at par in the matter of engagement of Re-T to the similarly circumstanced persons vide order No. CEOB/Estt-
RT/SWP-860/06/7140-48 dated 20/21/6.2006 by engaging her as Re-T teacher in Primary School Lachmanpora (now Middle School), falling
under educational zone of Hardu panzoo. Further direction is sought that Respondents be directed to sanction all the consequential benefits
accruing to her in law on treatment in the matter of engagement as Re/T similar and on par with the beneficiaries of aforementioned order. A
communication dated 20th April 2006 of ZEO Hardu Panzoo Budgam is on record to show that one post of teacher is still available in the Primary
School Lachmanpora.(Now Middle School).
Respondents have filed reply in which it is pleaded that one post was available in Primary School Lachmanpora under the Operation Black
Board Plan Scheme. It is also pleaded that only one General Line teacher was working in the school, the remaining posts were filled up in
accordance with the mandate of Rehbar Taleem Scheme. It is also pleaded that Petitioner was empanelled in the year 2002, against the said
vacancy created under OBB Plan Scheme that all the posts under the Scheme were abolished and the persons who were working against these
posts were adjusted against clear vacancies. It is also pleaded that case of Petitioner is not similar to that of the Petitioners in SWP No. 860/2003
in as much as the Petitioners in the said writ petition were empanelled against clear vacancies which were not covered under OBB Plan Scheme,
whereas, in the present case the Petitioner was empanelled against a vacancy created under OBB Plan, which later on came to be abolished.
Heard ld counsel for parties. Considered the matter.
Ld counsel for the parties argued in tune with their respective pleadings.
Mr. J.A. Kawoosa, Ld AAG, at conclusion of hearing of the arguments produced an. advertisement notice issued by ZEO Hardu Panzoo
dated 31st of Dec. 2002 in which it is provided that for Boys Primary School Lanchmanpora, a post of teacher is available, it is also mentioned in
the said advertisement notice, that the post is of OBB Scheme, and candidate(s) possessing minimum qualification of 10+2, were asked to
responded to the said notification. Along with this advertisement notice the ld counsel also produced copy of the panel showing that the Petitioner
was the only candidate who was empanelled for being engaged on the said post. Documents produced are taken on record.
The case of the Petitioner hinges on one ground as to whether she is similarly circumstanced with the Petitioners of SWP No. 860/03.
To answer this question it requires to be ascertained as to whether those persons were also empanelled for being selected/engaged as Re-T in
pursuance of the Scheme launched by the Respondents.
It is not in dispute that all those persons were empanelled for being selected/engaged as Re-T (teaching guide), but the distinction is sought to
be drawn in their case on the ground that all those candidates were empanelled for being/engaged as Re-T against clear available vacancy,
whereas the Petitioner was empanelled for being engaged against post under OBB Plan Scheme.
After the empanelment of Petitioners in SWP No. 860/03 and the Petitioner herein, these panels were ordered to be kept on hold by the then
Deputy Commissioner Budgam, for the reason that these posts were required to be utilized for adjusting the teachers working under OBB Scheme
in terms of the circular and ""instructions conveyed by the Director School Education vide No. DDE/PLG/OBB/1126-32 dated 15th June 2000.
The persons who were empanelled for being selected and engaged as Re-T for various schools of District Budgam thus constituted one single class
and they were treated as such by the Respondents by ordering for keeping on hold all the panels so as to enable the authorities to adjust the
teachers working under the OBB Scheme. The writ petition No. 860/03 was disposed of by the court directing only to consider the claim of the
Petitioners therein. The court did not pass any positive direction in that case requiring the Respondents to engage them as Re-T teachers. The
exercise was to be undertaken by Respondents themselves. The Respondents in terms of the order passed in June 2006 adjusted all those
candidates as Re-T's, the Petitioner in such circumstances could not be discriminated. It is inconsequential as to whether the persons were
empanelled against clear vacancies or against the vacancies available under OBB Plan. Since all the posts were utilized for adjusting teachers
working under the OBB Plan, the Petitioners in SWP No. 860/03 and the Petitioner herein formed one single class as they were all deprived of the
posts whether they were clear or available under OBB Plan. In such circumstances no post whether available vacancy or post available under
OBB Plan remained available.
The purpose of utilizing the available posts was to accommodate teachers working under OBB Plan. So no post remained available even for
Petitioners in SWP 860/03. The Re-T panels were ordered to be kept on hold. The persons who were empanelled thus formed one single class
and they were treated as such by Respondents themselves. It was thus of no consequence as to whether someone was empanelled against clear
vacancy or against OBB vacancy.
The Respondents have adjusted the Petitioners of SWP No. 860/03 as Re-T's, the Petitioner in this petition by not having been given the same
treatment has been subjected to invidious discrimination thus violating the constitutional guarantees available to her under the Article 14 and 16
Constitution of India. The argument of the ld. counsel for the Respondents that the Petitioner herein, and Petitioners in SWP No. 860/03 were not
similarly circumstanced for the reasons that the Petitioners of the earlier petition were empanelled against clear available vacancies and Petitioner
herein empanelled under the vacancy available in OBB Plan would make no difference between the Petitioner herein and the Petitioners therein for
the reasons stated hereinabove. The objection of ld. counsel for the Respondents that Petitioner approached the court at late stage would also not
prevent the court from allowing the writ petition in as much as the writ court has to remove the injustice. The court when confronted with situation
like this will not refuse to discharge its constitutional functions on the plea raised by Mr. Kawoosa, ld. AAG.
Mr. R.A. Jan, ld. counsel for Petitioner referred to and relied upon case titled Inder Pal Yadav and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and
Others, , invited the attention of the court to para 5. Relevant part thereof is reproduced as under:
Therefore, those who could not come to the court need riot be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here. If they are otherwise
similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment, if not by anyone else at the hands of this Court.
In view of the fact situation obtaining in this case Petitioner is held to be similarly circumstanced to the Petitioners in SWP No. 860/03.
For the above stated reasons, this petition is allowed in the following terms;
a) By issuance of writ of mandamus, the Respondents are directed to give same and similar treatment to the Petitioner which has been given to
Petitioners of SWP No. 860/03 by adjusting her on the same pattern as the Petitioners in the aforesaid said petition have been adjusted vide order
CEOB/Estt-RT/SWP-860/06/7140-48 dated 20/21/6.2006.
b) It is made clear that Petitioner will not be entitled to any benefits prior to passing of the appointment order.