PRETAM DASS SHARMA Vs. STATE OF J&K
LAWS(J&K)-1993-10-7
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on October 25,1993

Pretam Dass Sharma Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JANDK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)BY these two writ petitioners, a challenge has been made to the appointments of respondents 9 to 36 as Teachers in Tehsil Sundarbani and a direction is sought for quashment of their appointments. Further a writ of Mandamus is sought to be issued directing the respondents 1,2 and 7 to appoint the writ petitioners as Teachers in Tehsil in Sundarbani treating them to have been duly selected on the said posts with effect from 2 -5 -1989.
(2.)AS the common facts and law are involved in both these writ petitions therefore, these have been bracketed together to be disposed of by a common judgment.
(3.)THE petitioners belong to Tehsil Sundarbani, which in an area declared as Border Development Area vide Govt. Order No 1026 -GD of 198S According to petitioners, some posts of teachers were advertised by publication of a notice in Daily Kashmir Times from Tehsil Sundarbani, which was declared as Border Development Area. The minimum qualification for these posts of Teachers was Matriculation. The writ -petitioners who were bitterly qualified vis -a - vis private respondents, also applied for appointment as teachers. The interviews for such posts was held on 13th and 14th of June 1988. However, later on the appointment orders of respondents 9 to 36 were issued by the respondent No, 7 of the basis of selection made by respondent 2. The petitioners tried to get a copy of the said order of appointment, but it was avoided to them and afterwards they learnt from a clerk about the list of the selected candidates, from which it became clear that only 89 candidates were selected from Tehsil Sundarbaai.
In Writ Petition No. 1141 of 1989, it has been contended by the Writ -petitioners, that the petitioners 1,2,3 and 4 are graduates; petitioner no. 7 falls under the category of persons falling under Actual Line of Control; petitioner no. 4 is handicapped and falls under that category; petitioners Nos. 10,11 falls under the category of P.T.C., whereas petitioner no. 12 falls under the category of ex -serviceman.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.