- (1.)Calculated acts of the Respondents resulted in exclusion of the Appellant from being engaged Rehbar-e-Taleem teacher in Government Middle School, Tarzoo. The Appellant admittedly possessing superior merit than that of Respondent No. 6 has been rendered ineligible on the basis of recording his residence as Allibagh Tarzoo when in fact he is the resident of Tarzoo. The said position of him being resident of Tarzoo is also supported by the communication available on the record as produced by learned Counsel for the Respondents bearing No. ZEOS/1300 dated 28.8.2007 wherein it has been mentioned that the Appellant was not included in the list of candidates of Tarzoo as he was shown resident of village Allibagh. Representation against such position was referred to revenue authorities for clearance who have reported that the portion of Allibagh falls within village Haigam and portion of it falls in village Tarzoo but in fact there is no separate identity of village Allibagh in revenue records. Based on such clarification it is mentioned that the Appellant was recommended for being engaged vide office No. 692 dated 6.11.2002 addressed to Chief Education Officer, Baramulla. Before the requisite approval could be received, Respondent No. 6 Irshad Ahmad Rather filed a writ petition wherein Appellant was not arrayed as a party. The said writ petition bearing SWP No. 679/2003 has been disposed of on 12.8.2005 and in view of the directions contained therein, engagement order in favour of Irshad Ahmad Rather, Petitioner therein, as RT for Govt. Middle School, Tarzoo was issued.
(2.)Appellant when came to know about the engagement order in favour of writ Petitioner Irshad Ahmad Rather, he immediately filed writ petition (SWP) No. 1025/2005 which has been disposed of on 26.5.2006 where-under withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to invoke appropriate remedy, has been permitted as it was noticed that the order in favour of Respondent No. 6 has come into being by dint of the judgment passed in SWP No. 679/2003. As a result thereof, the Appellant has filed instant LPA against the judgment passed in SWP No. 679/2003.
(3.)The factual matrix of this case suggest improper issuance of the order of engagement as RT in favour of Respondent No. 6. Situation has been created where-from it is inferable that the Respondent No. 6 has been helped at the cost of the Appellant.