RUBINA MOHI-UD-DIN Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.05.2013 rendered by a Learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing of SWP No.2777/2011. The Writ Court held that the advertisement inviting applications for engagement as Rehbar-e- Taleem was defective because it had invited applications only from the residents of habitation Tankipora Khumriyal. According to the learned Single Judge, for the purposes of filling up the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem it is not the habitation but the revenue village which is considered as a unit for inviting applications. As a consequence of the aforesaid finding the Learned Single Judge issued directions which are discernable from paras 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment and order. The aforesaid paras are set out below in extenso, which read thus:-

(2.) THE writ petitioner-appellant feeling aggrieved has approached this Court with a prayer that she was the only eligible candidate from the habitation of Tankipora Kumriyal, who had qualification of B.Sc. at that time. She was duly selected and was awaiting issuance of appointment order for which she had approached the Court. However, on the objections filed by the respondents including private respondents, a direction has been issued to issue a corrigendum clarifying that the revenue village would be treated as a unit for inviting applications from eligible candidates and eligibility is freezed as per the last date for receipt of applications given in the advertisement notice.

(3.) ONCE it has come on record that the advertisement has illegally confined invitation of application to the habitation Tankipora Khumriyal then it was absolutely lawful for the Writ Court to issue appropriate directions. In our view the illegality committed by issuing advertisement on 23.04.2010 has been cured by issuing direction for publication of corrigendum to that advertisement so as to make it consistent with Government Order No.288 Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009. It is the aforesaid order which provides that selection has to be made from the revenue village and not from the habitation. We are further of the view that the Learned Single Judge has rightly confined the process of selection to those candidates, who were eligible to apply for the post on the cut off date prescribed in the earlier advertisement notice dated 23/24.04.2010 (erroneously mentioned as 04.05.2010 in para 8 of the impugned judgment).