Jammu and Kashmir High Court
LPASW/189/2016 of ABRAR AMIN BUTT Vs STATE TH.EDUCATION DEPTT.AND ORS. on 31 December 2018
LPASW No. 189/2016 Page 1 of 3 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU LPASW No. 189/2016 (O&M) Reserved on 29.11.2018 Date of judgment: 31.12.2018 Abrar Amin Butt vs. State and others Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice
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.
Conclusion
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIRAT JAMMU
LPASW No. 189/2016 (O&M)
Reserved on 29.11.2018
Date of judgment: 31.12.2018
Abrar Amin Butt vs. State and others
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal, JudgeHon’ble Mr. Justice Tashi Rabstan, Judge Appearance:
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudershan Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravinder Kumar Gupta, AAG for R 1 to 4 Nemo for R- 5 & 6.
Rajesh Bindal J.
1. Order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 06.12.2016 allowing the writ petition filed by respondent Nos. 5 & 6 has been impugned by filing present intra-court appeal.
2. The writ petition was filed praying quashing of order dated 03.02.2012, by which the appellant was appointed as Rehber-e-Taleem Teacher in Upper Primary School, Buttpora in Math stream.
3. The Chief Education Officer, Kishtwar issued advertisement notice on 20.03.2009 in pursuance of which the appellant and respondent Nos. 5 & 6 submitted their applications. The respondent No. 6 was appointed on 17.09.2009. He submitted his joining report on 24.09.2009. Thereafter, he absented from duty. It came on record that he was pursing his degree in Civil Engineering in a College in the State of Punjab. On the ground of his absence from duty, his services were terminated vide order dated 16.01.2010. Thereafter, the appellant was appointed being the next candidate in the merit list. His proposal for engagement was sent on 22.02.2010 and same was approved by the Director, School Education, Jammu on 14.06.2010. Thereafter, series of writ petitions were filed by the private respondents, bearing SWP Nos. 502, 236 and 246 of 2012, wherein challenge was made to the appointment of appellant and for issuance of fresh advertisement. All the writ petitions were taken up together and disposed of vide impugned order dated 06.12.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge opined that the validity of waiting list/panel was for six months and further that the post having already filled up, the candidate in panel could not be appointed. Hence, directed to re-advertise the post.
4. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the validity of the waiting list was for a period of one year as is evident from communication dated 11.09.2009 issued by the Director, School Education, Jammu to the Chief Education Officer, Kishtwar. Hence, the appellant was rightly appointed on the post falling vacant due to termination of respondent No. 6.
5. Stand of learned counsel appearing for the State is that post had in fact been filled up by appointing respondent No. 6. As his services were terminated on account of prolonged absence, the candidate from the panel could not have been appointed. It was not a case where post was not filled up. Hence, there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. It remained undisputed that after the process of selection was complete, the respondent No. 6 was appointed as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher vide order dated 17.09.2009. He submitted his joining report on 24.09.2009. However, as he absented himself from duty, his services were terminated on 16.01.2010. On appointment of respondent No. 6, the post in question was filled up. Hence, the panel could not be made operative. Further, it is not disputed that the appellant was appointed six months beyond the date, initial appointment of
respondent No. 6 was made. His argument was that the panel was valid for a period of one year. However, order dated 10.06.2010 issued by the Secretary to Government, School Education Department shows that issue of order regarding validity of panel was subject matter of consideration before this Court. The aforesaid circular providing one year validity of the panel was directed to be kept in abeyance by this Court in SWP No. 1024/2009, with liberty to the Government to take a decision afresh. It was thereafter that decision was taken on 10.06.2010 that the panel would be valid for a period of six months.
7. For the reasons stated above, we do not find that any ground is made out to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
8. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
( Tashi Rabstan) (Rajesh Bindal)
Judge Judge
JAMMU 31 .12.2018 Karam Chand
Whether the order is speaking : Yes Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No