Case: MEENA SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

3. The RET Scheme was notified by the State Government on 28 April 20005. The two villages in question in the present case are Chak Koura, to which the appellant belongs and the village of Bakore, to which the fifth respondent belongs. Both these villages are situated on the international border at a distance of four kilometers. There was no school in the village of Chak Koura to which the appellant belongs. An advertisement was issued on 23 November 2001 by the Zonal Education Office seeking applications from local candidates of the villages where the educational institution(s) were situated for engagement as RET teaching guides. Two posts were vacant, one each in the Middle School for Boys and Girls at Bakore. Fourteen applications were received. A panel was formed in which the first nine candidates belonged to village Bakore and the rest to the adjoining village of Chak Koura. The panel was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner Jammu. The residents of Chak Koura raised an objection on the ground that the persons belonging to the village of Bakore were placed above them. A meeting of the Village Education Committee was held on 15 December 2002. A decision was taken to prepare a combined panel for the two villages in view of the topography of the two adjacent villages and to furnish an opportunity to the educated youth of village Chak Koura in which there was no school. A Select List was prepared in December 2002 including candidates of both the villages. The Select List consisted of fourteen candidates including the appellant at Serial No 1 and the fifth respondent at Serial No 76. In the meantime, a fresh notification was issued on 19 July 2003 for inviting applications. In July 2003, the appellant instituted a Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the fresh notification. On 7 August 2003, appointment orders were issued to two candidates, both of whom were residents of village Chak Koura in accordance with their position in the Select List. The High Court adjudicated on the Writ Petition filed by the appellant on 9 September 2003 by directing the authorities to make appointments on the basis of the panel of recommended candidates subject to verification of habitation7. The appellant filed a contempt petition for non-compliance of the directions. Faced with the Contempt Petition, the Director of School Education, Jammu granted approval on 21 November 2007 to the engagement of the appellant as an RET teacher in the Middle School at Bakore against an available vacancy. The Contempt Petition was disposed of on 22 November 2007. The order of appointment was communicated to the appellant on 3 December 20078. In 2009, the fifth respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. The appellant was not impleaded as a party to the Petition. The averments contained in paragraph 12 of the Writ Petition, would indicate that the fifth respondent was aware of the Select List which had been drawn up for appointment to the post of RET. The Select List was, in fact, annexed as Annexure A4 to the Writ Petition. Paragraph 12 of the Writ Petition read as follows:12. That out of the panel prepared by respondents which is annexed as Annexure A4, the candidates falling at serial no.2 and 3 have resigned being the persons belonging to another village. Serial no.5 Kiran Kumar was engaged from that panel being a resident of village Bakore. Candidate at serial no.6 Puja Sharma refused to join and the candidate at serial no.12 Santosh Kumari was married and is engaged in her in- laws village and the petitioner stands at serial no.13 of that panel and in case the candidates belonging to village Chak Koura are excluded from the panel, the petitioner stands at serial no.2 of the last panel and there are 3 posts of RET teachers still vacant in middle school Bakore. It is pertinent to mention here that only one candidate from the last panel was engaged and rest of the panel was not executed by the respondent authorities9. Annexure A4 was the Select List containing the panel of candidates for engagement as RET guides in village Bakore. It needs to be noted at this stage that initially on 7 August 2003, the candidates at Serial Nos 2 and 3 of the Select List had been appointed. They resigned in September 2007. The name of the appellant was shown at Serial No 5 of the Select List while the fifth respondent was shown at Serial No 14. The fifth respondent did not implead the appellant as a party to the proceedings which were instituted in 2009 and instead, chose to implead two other candidates, Sunita Rajput and Samita Rani, who were placed below the appellant at Serial Nos 9 and 10 of the Select List10. In January 2011, the fifth respondent instituted a second Writ Petition challenging the order dated 3 December 2007 appointing the appellant as an RET teaching guide11. On the completion of five years engagement as an RET teacher, the appellant was regularized as a general line teacher on 14 January 2013. The appellant was transferred from Bakore on 24 July 2014 after her regularization12. A Writ Petition filed by the appellant seeking benefits under her appointment as a regular teacher was allowed by the High Court on 1 July 2013, following which the State Government issued instructions on 28 August 2014 to implement the judgment. The regularization of the appellant was given effect to with effect from 10 September 2008 on completing the initial period of five years as RET teaching guide13. The High Court allowed the Writ Petitions filed by the fifth respondent by a judgment dated 15 December 2014 and quashed the appointment of the appellant as an RET Teacher. The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on 31 December 2018.

Reasoning:
17. In assessing the rival submissions, the central aspect of the case which needs to be emphasised is that after the appointment of the appellant on 3 December 2007, the first challenge to her appointment was four years later in the Writ Petition of 2011. The fifth respondent filed a Writ Petition earlier in 2009, but chose not to implead the appellant or to challenge her appointment. Though the fifth respondent claims that she was unaware of the appointment of the appellant, this explanation cannot be accepted for the reason that the Select List was annexed at Annexure A4 to the first Writ Petition. A diligent enquiry would have revealed that the appellant had been appointed in the meantime. The appellant was appointed after the first two candidates who had been appointed as teaching guides under the RET Scheme resigned from the position. The four year delay on the part of the fifth respondent in contesting the appointment of the appellant, disentitled her to claim any relief18. Apart from this, the appellant was regularized in service in 2013 before the judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that she was not eligible for appointment on the ground that she did not belong to the revenue village. The VEC took a bona fide decision to draw up a combined list for the two villages because Chak Koura had no school. Moreover, the challenge to the appointment of the appellant will not be of any benefit to the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent cannot claim a right of appointment on the basis of a Select List of 2003 after a lapse of sixteen years. The Select List cannot have any indefinite life so as to be operated at an uncertain future date. In any event, we are of the view that if a bona fide decision was taken by the government to approve the appointment of the appellant following the decision of the High Court, this cannot be faulted. In deciding as to whether a fit and proper case was made out before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, an important consideration is the proximity of the two villages and the fact that there was no school in village Chak Koura to which the appellant belonged. It is also significant to note that the initial appointments of the candidates were also of persons belonging to the village of Chak Koura19. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the Writ Petition which was filed by the fifth respondent suffered from an unexplained delay. Even on merits the appointment of the appellant is not vitiated. In the meantime, equities have ensued in favour of the appellant who has been regularized in service and has continued after regularization for nearly six years. The fifth respondent cannot at this stage claim a vested right to appointment on the basis of the Select List of 2003It is also significant to note that the initial appointments of the candidates were also of persons belonging to the village of Chak