HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU SWP No. 1739/2005 CMP Nos. D-327/2011, 2087/2005 & D-854/2009 Date of decision: 15.03.2011 Shabnum Naz Vs. State & Ors. Coram : Mr. Justice J.P. Singh, Judge. Appearing counsel: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.P.Gandhi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.A.Bhat, Advocate for R-5 to 7. The petitioner-Shabnum Naz has filed this Writ Petition seeking selection and appointment as Rehbar-e-Taleem (Teaching Guide) in Government Middle School, Debraj, Zone Mankote, besides quashing of the selection and appointment of M/s Mohd. Nisar, Malika Khatoon & Zareena Akhtar, respondent Nos. 5 to 7 to the Petition. The case set up in the Writ Petition is that being a resident of Village Debraj with merit assessed at 49.05% and indicated at serial No.1 of the Merit List of the candidates prepared for engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem in Middle School, Debraj of Zone Mankote, she had the first right to selection and the engagement of the respondents with lower merit, ignoring her claim to appointment, was illegal and unwarranted. Copy of the Merit List of the candidates prepared by the Zonal Education Officer Mankote (Poonch) indicating 2 petitioner No.1 at Serial No.1 thereof has been placed on the records. The respondents in their Response to the Writ Petition have justified the selection of private respondents on the ground that petitioner’s plea of being better in merit to the respondents was incorrect, in that, she was not entitled to the additional weightage, which had been given to her in the Merit Panel, which qualification of her had been erroneously treated as equivalent to Graduation. According to the respondents, ‘Adeeb-e-Kamil’ was not equivalent to Graduation and her merit required assessment on the basis of her percentage of marks obtained in the Higher Secondary Part II, in terms whereof she secured only 37% marks whereas the respondents had secured 46.03, 38.06 and 38.00 percentage of marks. The respondents were, thus, better in merit to the petitioner and their selection and appointment was legally valid. It is additionally pleaded that the petitioner was not resident of Village Debraj and was, thus, disentitled to seek engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem in Middle School, Debraj. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment delivered by this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions lead case being SWP No. 246/2004, referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents. 3 The first question that falls for consideration in this Petition is as to whether the petitioner was rightly shown at Serial No. 1 of the merit list of candidates for engagement in Middle School, Debraj. To consider it, reference needs to be made to the merit of the petitioner and the private respondents. The petitioner’s merit on the basis of HSP II is assessed as 37%, adding thereto the percentage of marks secured by her in ‘Adeeb-e-Kamil’, her percentage of marks is shown to have risen to 49.05. As against the percentage of marks in HSP II, the percentage of the private respondents is 46.03, 38.06 and 38.00 respectively. It, therefore, becomes explicit that if the selection were to be made on the basis of percentage of marks obtained by the candidates in HSP II, the petitioner may not have any case to question the selection of the respondents because of her lower merit in HSP II; but in case the petitioner was entitled to additional weightage because of her additional qualification of ‘Adeeb-e-Kamil’, which is claimed equivalent to Graduation, her claim to selection would succeed, provided, however, she was found resident of Village Debraj. The question as to whether ‘Adeeb-e-Kamil’ is equivalent to Graduation is no longer res integra, in that, the issue stands concluded by this Court vide its judgment in a batch of Writ Petitions lead case being SWP No. 246/2004 wherein it has been held that ‘Adeeb-e-Kamil’ is not 4 equivalent to Graduation, unless the person possessing the qualification of ‘Adeeb-e-Kamil’ had passed three subjects in B.A Part I, II & III except Persian. The petitioner has not projected any such case of having passed three subjects in B.A Part I, II & III after acquiring the qualification of ‘Adeeb-e-Kamil’ and in this view of the matter, she can not be said to have acquired any such qualification which may be treated equivalent to Graduation because ‘Adeeb-e-Kamil’, as such, is not equivalent to Graduation. She was not, therefore, entitled to any additional weightage and her percentage of marks obtained in HSP II alone needed consideration for assessing her merit vis-à-vis other candidates. The respondents have, therefore, not committed any illegality in refusing engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem to the petitioner, in that, her placement at Serial No.1 of the Merit Panel on the ground that she possessed Graduation Degree was unjustified. She was entitled to consideration only on the basis of the percentage of her marks in HSP II. Thus, finding the petitioner lower in merit to the private respondents, on the basis of the percentage of marks obtained by them in HSP II, her challenge to the selection and appointment of the respondents as Rehbar-e-Taleem fails and is, accordingly, rejected. 5 In view of the petitioner having been found lower in merit to the respondents, the question as to whether or not she was resident of Village Debraj, need not be gone into, in that, even if it had to be decided that she is resident of village Debraj, she may not still be entitled to selection and engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem because of her lower merit. Found without merit, this Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( J. P. Singh ) Judge Jammu: 15.03.2011 Pawan Chopra