MOHAMMAD MAQBOOL GANIE Vs. STATE
LAWS(J&K)-2006-11-7
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on November 14,2006

Mohammad Maqbool Ganie Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, J. - (1.) IT is averred in this writ petition that petitioners came to be engaged by the respondents - Education Department as Non -formal Education Instructors. Respondents vide Government Order No. 325 -Edu of 1985 dated 16.07.1985 accorded sanction to reserve 3% posts of teachers in each District for absorption of Non -formal Education Instructors provided they had continuously worked in the centre(s) for at least four years and maintained the minimum enrollment of 25 students on an average basis for the said period of four years. Respondent No. 5 requested the Project Officer Adult Education/ Non -formal Education, Budgam vide communication bearing No. DXB/264 -66 dated 25th October, 1995 to prepare the list of part time instructors working in the District indicating the complete particulars in terms of the Government order, referred hereinabove.
(2.) RESPONDENTS invited applications for filling up of post of general line teachers in District Budgam vide advertisement notice No. 4 of 1995 dated 30.03.1995 contained in annexure -B. It appears that communications came to be made inter -se respondents which are annexures to the writ petition. Petitioners also participated in the selection process in terms of advertisement notice contained in annexure -B, referred hereinabove and came to be interviewed but petitioners were not selected/appointed despite of the communications contained in annexures to writ petition. Further, it is averred in this writ petition that respondents have, on the wrong premises, opined that SRO 126 of 1994 does not provide for any reservation for Non -Formal Education Instructors. Further, it is averred that petitioners are performing the same job, discharging duties and responsibilities which general line teachers are performing and discharging thus are entitled to equal pay and grade as admissible to the teachers. Petitioners have prayed that respondents be directed to declare the petitioners entitled to equal pay for equal work and also command the respondents to forward the list of selected Non -Formal Instructors for appointment as general line teachers.
(3.) RESPONDENTS have filed reply. It is profitable to reproduce para -4 of the preliminary objections and para -3 of the parawise reply, herein: 3. That the petitioner's main contention against the answering respondent is that they are seeking consideration against the so called reserved category of part -time instructors and have prayed to the Hon'ble Court for issuance of a writ of Mandamus commanding the answering respondent to issue the select list under the said category. It is respectfully submitted that by the issuance of SRO 126 of 1994, which prescribes the reservation policies to be adopted while making selections, no such category under the name and style of part -time instructors has been incorporated in the said SRO. On this count as well the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.3 to 7: - That the averments made in paras 3 to 7 does not pertain to the answering respondents however it is submitted that an advertisement notice No. 4 of 95 dated 25 -3 -1995 was issued by the answering respondents for various posts including the post of teachers district cadre Budgam. It is also admitted that Govt. order No. 523 -Edu of 85 dated 16.07.1985 was passed by the Govt. whereby 3% reservation was provided for the post of teachers for the considering part time instructors for at least 4 years and retained a minimum enrollment of 25 students, but by the issuance of SRO 126 of 94 no such reservation has been prescribed. Considered.;


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