RITA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF J&K
LAWS(J&K)-1999-6-20
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on June 03,1999

RITA GUPTA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JANDK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) WOULD the experience gained by a teacher when he or she is promoted as incharge Lecturer in his or her own pay grade would be different from the one which is gained by a person who is working on regular basis, is the moot point which is required to be determined in these two appeals. The appellants herein had submitted their applications for being considered to the post of Lecturer to a service constituted under the Jammu and Kashmir Educalion (Gazetted) College Recruitment Rules of 1995 (herein -after referred to as the Rules of 1995) These applications stand rejected.
(2.) THE facts in brief are as under : - Appellant Rita Gupta was selected against a post of teacher. This was in the year 1984. Later on, vide Government Order No; 866(Edu) of 1987, issued on 3rd June, 1987, she was promoted as Incharge Lecturer in her own pay and grade. There was a stipulation that this appointment was for a period of six months or till the post is filled by the Public Service Commission or by the Departmental Promotion Committee. This appellant continues in service till date. Appellant Rajinder Singh in the connected appeal was promoted as Incharge Lecturer in his own pay and grade vide Government Order No. 51 (Edu) of 1989 issued on 19th January, 1989. He has continued to work as such till date. The order by which this appellant was asked to perform the duties of Incharge Lecturer contains similar stipulation as was there in the case of appellant Rita Gupta.
(3.) THE claims of the appellants for being considered for appointment to the service constituted under the Rules of 1995 having been rejected, both the appellants preferred writ petitions in this court. Their basic contention was that as an inservice candidate, they were eligible for being considered to the post of Lecturer against the quota of 40% of the posts which were meant to be filled by selection from amongst the Lecturers of Higher Secondary Schools/Head Masters/Zonal Education officers/Additional Zonal Education officers/ Zonal Education Planning Officers having teaching experience of five years at Higher Secondary level in the subject concerned on the basis of open competition. The appellants submitted that they do possess the teaching experience of five years at Higher Secondary level in the concerned subjects. Their claims stood rejected because in the notification issued by the Public Service Commission, it was indicated that only those in -service candidates whose service has been regularised would be eligible for consideration. The appellants submit that the requirement of having regular service was not there in the Rules and this condition having been incorporated by the Commission cannot be allowed to operate to their prejudice. It was further submitted that the experience gained against a post even though not regular, is good and sufficient and this would fulfill the requirement of Rules of 1995. This plea of theirs was rejected by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The writ petitions stands dismissed. It was observed that it is only a person gaining experience while rendering regular service is eligible for being considered. It was observed that such is the requirement laid -down in the notification issued by the Commission. It is this aspect of the matter which is subject matter of challenge in these two appeals. The prayer made by the appellants in the writ petitions may also be noticed at this stage. These were: i/ A writ of mandamus was claimed directing the Government to regularise the service of the appellants w.e.f. the date, they had been working as such; ii/ that there was no requirement in the Rules that a candidate must have the teaching experience of five years at Higher Secondary level in the subject concerned and having regularised service as such . Thus, it was urged: a/ that the requirement of having regularised service is a condition which has been added by the Public Service Commission; b/ that there is no difference between the service rendered as Incharge of the post and as working against regularised service. ;


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