- (1.) PETITIONERS case is that she has been engaged as teacher in the Creche Centre Lanoora Budgam on monthly consolidated pay of Rs. 350/ - P. M on 28.9.1989, by the then Chairman Welfare Extension Project Budgam. Respondent No.2 (annexure -P1). She joined and resumed duties as such with respondent No.3 at Lanoora Centre. In 1993, one post of Gram Sevika in the Welfare Extension Project at Budgam fell vacant as the appointed Gram Sevika namely Hasina Hakim vacated the post. As petitioner had improved her qualification in between and had eligibility and experience, her case was recommended by her immediate Officer (Treasurer Welfare Extension Project Budgam) to respondent No.1 for her appointment against this available vacancy (annexure -P2). Petitioner further represented to the authorities that having the eligibility, qualification and experience, her case may be considered for appointment as Gram Sevika. Respondent No.2 again recommended her case on 14.6.92 to respondent No.1 Chairperson State Social Welfare Advisory, Board, Srinagar (annexure -P3). Even thereafter, petitioner represented to respondents (annexure P4), but no steps or action has been taken on her representation or the presentation and recommendation of her case by her superior officers to the Competent authority. Consideration is being withheld to her against available post of Gram Sevika in Budgam. Presentation of her case through her counsel (annexure -P5), has not also evoked any response. Respondents are denying her consideration against the post. Despite her being engaged by respondents as Creche Teacher way back in 1989 in which post she worked all along and gained sufficient experience for last about 10 years, she is being denied consideration unjustly and illegaly. Respondents are under legal obligation to accord her consideration in terms of the rules against the said post and till it is done the petitioners continuiry as Creche Teacher on original terms and conditions, cannot be denied to her.
(2.) ON these averred factual and circumstancial premises, she prays for consideration for appointment against the available post of Gram Sevika with the respondents and till the consideration is accorded she may be continued as she is presently continuing on initial terms and conditions of her engagement as Creche Teacher.
(3.) THE case has been admitted to hearing on 25.10.1996. Respondents have opted not to file any reply/counter affidavit. Counsel for petitioner and Mr. G. Mustaffa, GA for respondents, have been heard. At the outset Mr. Mustaffa concedes that as despite opportunity respondents have not filed reply/counter, therefore, in absence of such reply the factual allegations as averred in the writ petition have to be taken as uncontroverted and intact. The engagement of petitioner as Creche Teacher at Lanoora Budgam Centre vide annexure P1, is not denied. Recommending petitioners case vide annexures P2 and P3 is equally admitted. Representation by petitioner for according her consideration against the post of Gram Sevika available in District Budgam vide annexures P4 and P5 is not also refused. Respondents counsel conceds that post of Gram Sevika is available with respondents. In the above facts and circumstances, petitioner, subject to eligibility, qualification and norms prescribed for appointment to the post of Gram Sevika under the respondents in accordance with the recruitment rules/norms/ executive instructions cannot be denied consideration, more so keeping in view her length of engagement as Creche Teacher in Social Welfare Extension Project under the respondent No. 1. After all petitioner may not have a right of appointment, but law gives her right of consideration for appointment to the post of Gram Sevika. Denial of consideration by long inaction or silence on the part of respondents infringes the equality clause and violates her right as guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of Constitution.;