Jammu and Kashmir High Court
SWP/314/2012 of POOJA DEVI Vs STATE TH.EDUCATION DEPTT.AND ORS. on 6 July 2026
49 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU SWP No. 314/2012 Pooja Devi …. Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through:- None. V/s State of J&K and Ors. …..Respondent(s) Through:- Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Advocate vice Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, GA. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE
Sr. No. 49
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
SWP No. 314/2012
Pooja Devi
…. Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through:-
None.
V/s
State of J&K and Ors.
…..Respondent(s)
Through:-
Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Advocate vice
Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, GA.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
06.07.2026
1. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing advertisement notice dated 27.12.2011 and it is contended that private respondents are less meritorious than the petitioner, who have been projected as candidates for selection as ReT to the exclusion of petitioner to the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem teacher for Upper Primary School, Machwa and further prayer has been made to commanding the respondents to re-advertise the post of ReT teacher for Upper Primary School, Machwa.
2. The respondents in their response have stated that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the advertisement because she had not attained the age of 18 years as on 01.01.2000 mentioned.
3. It is further stated that two eligible candidates, namely, Anchal Singh and Sanjay Kumar were engaged as Rehbar-e-Taleem teacher vide order dated 01.08.2012. The petitioner has not challenged the engagement of the Anchal Singh and Sanjay Kumar and further the respondents are right in submitting that the petitioner was not having the prescribed SWP No. 314/2012
2
qualification to respond to the advertisement notice, as such, had no locus to file the petition.
4. Be that as it may, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner on the last date of hearing. Same is the position today as well and otherwise also, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “UT of J&K v. Saba Wani decided on 30.04.2026”, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted.
5. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
(Rajnesh Oswal) Judge
JAMMU 06.07.2026. Neha-1
Neha Kumari 2026.07.07 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document