Sheeraz Ahmad Makroo vs State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others

The instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Rules is directed against order dated 15.05.2012 passed by learned Single Judge of

this Court, holding that both the appellant as well as respondent no. 8 are resident of Ward no. 3 and therefore both of them are entitled to be

considered for appointment to the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem. It is pertinent to mention that an advertisement notice was published on 19.03.2010

in the English Daily _Greater Kashmir_ inviting applications from eligible candidates of Ward no. 3 of Municipal Committee, Arwani. The appellant

challenged the eligibility of respondent no. 8 pleading that in fact he was not eligible as he was resident of Ward no. 4. On that basis, the appellant

claimed that he possessed eligibility to the exclusion of candidates belonging to other wards. It has come on record that the certificate issued in

favour of both the appellant as well as respondent no. 8 would show that the limitations of Ward no. 3 have not been finally decided. However, the

area which has been included in Ward no. 3 is at a stage of proposal. The certificate issued in favour of the appellant shows that he is resident of

Makroo Mohalla of Municipal Committee limits which falls in the proposed Ward no. 3. Similarly, respondent no. 8 is shown to be resident of

Mohalla Kanipora of Municipal Committee which is proposed to be included in Ward no. 3. Apparently the proposal for inclusion of area, where

both the appellant and respondent no.8 resides, is subject to final determination of the wards by the Competent Authority. In paras 4 and 5 the

learned Single Judge has noticed the aforesaid factual position and has held both the candidates eligible for consideration for the post of Rehbar-e-

Taleem and the same reads as under:-

Now the question is as to whether Kanipora Arwani where the respondent No. 8 resides, falls within the limits of Ward No. 3 or not. In this

connection it has to be made clear first that since on the basis of proposed ward position respondent No. 6 (Zonal Education Officer) has invited

applications from the candidates of Ward No. 3, it means that on the basis of proposed ward position advertisement notice has been issued and

applications have been invited. The only question which emerges for consideration is as to whether the area where respondent No. 8 resides falls

within the limits of proposed Ward No. 3. Communication dated 28th April, 2010 placed on record, addressed by Executive Officer, Municipal

Committee, Arwani to Zonal Education Officer, Bijbehara, would indicate that both petitioner as well as respondent No. 8 reside in Ward No. 3.

The said communication is based on the position of proposed wards of Municipal Committee, Arwani, copy of which, under the signatures of

Executive Officer, is placed on record wherein it is clearly indicated at serial No. 3 that Makroo Mohalla, Laleepora, Kanipora Nai Basti and

Kanipora fall within Ward no. 3.

Admittedly petitioner is resident of Makroo Mohalla whereas respondent no. 8 is resident of Kanipora. Both these mohallas fall within the limits

of proposed Ward no. 3, therefore, on the strength of this document, both petitioner and respondent no. 8 are eligible to compete for the post of

ReT.

Mr. Beigh, learned counsel for the appellant has made an attempt to persuade us to rule that respondent no. 8 is not eligible as the certificate

issued in his favour, showing him resident of Ward no. 3, is at the proposal stage. According to the learned counsel once the certificate issued in

favour of respondent no. 8 is provisional then he cannot be considered as a resident of Ward no. 3 and consequently he would not be eligible for

consideration for appointment to the post of Rehbar-e- Taleem.

Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the considered view that the instant appeal is wholly ill-advised. If we accept the argument of Mr.

Beigh. it would boomrang inasmuch as, the appellant himself has been issued the certificate which is provisional in nature. The area of Makroo

Mohalla where the appellant resides, has also been included in Ward no. 3 provisionally and is at proposal stage. We are, therefore, of the view

that the learned Single Judge has rightly held both the appellant and respondent no. 8 as eligible and has also validly issued further directions. The

appeal does not merit admission. The same is dismissed.