The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the selection of a Rehbar-e-Taleem (RET) teacher in Government High School, Panjgrain, holding that the appellant failed to prove that the selected candidate had lost her eligibility due to marriage outside the village.
The Division Bench observed that the material on record, including electoral documents and official submissions, supported the respondent’s claim that she continued to be a resident of the village and therefore remained eligible under the applicable selection norms.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose from the recruitment process for engagement of a teacher under the Rehbar-e-Taleem (RET) Scheme at Government High School, Panjgrain. The recruitment followed an advertisement notice issued on 3 December 2013 inviting applications for the post.
Both the appellant, Vipan Kumar, and respondent No. 5 applied for the position. After evaluating applications, the authorities prepared a selection panel dated 26 December 2013. In the panel:
- Respondent No. 5 was placed at Serial No. 1, and
- The appellant was placed at Serial No. 5.
Aggrieved by the outcome, the appellant challenged the panel by filing a writ petition seeking two primary reliefs:
- Quashing of the selection panel, and
- Direction to appoint him as the RET teacher at the school.
The appellant alleged that respondent No. 5 had become ineligible for the post because she had married a man from another village several years earlier and was no longer a resident of Panjgrain, which was the relevant village for recruitment under the RET Scheme.
Appellant’s Argument: Marriage Changed Residential Status
The principal contention of the appellant centered on the residential eligibility requirement under the RET Scheme.
According to the appellant:
- Respondent No. 5 had married Taib Majid around seven years before the writ petition.
- After marriage, she allegedly began residing in Village Dhanore Jaralan in Rajouri district, located more than 20 kilometers away from Panjgrain.
- Because the RET Scheme requires the candidate to be a local resident of the village where the school is located, respondent No. 5 could no longer claim eligibility.
On this basis, the appellant argued that the selection panel placing respondent No. 5 at the top should be set aside and that he should instead be considered for appointment.
Government’s Stand on Eligibility
The official respondents opposed the challenge and defended the selection.
They submitted that:
- Respondent No. 5 continued to be a resident of Village Panjgrain and satisfied the eligibility conditions.
- The school catered to a population where approximately 75% of inhabitants belonged to Scheduled Tribe (ST) communities.
- Under the RET Scheme norms, where a school serves a predominantly SC/ST population, only candidates belonging to those categories with the required qualifications are eligible.
Respondent No. 5 belonged to the Scheduled Tribe category and therefore qualified under the applicable norms.
The authorities also relied on earlier judicial precedent, arguing that a woman cannot be denied consideration in her parental village solely because she married into another village.
Response of the Selected Candidate
Respondent No. 5 also filed objections contesting the allegations made by the appellant.
She asserted that:
- She continued to reside in Village Panjgrain and not in Village Dhanore Jaralan as alleged.
- Her name had earlier appeared in the electoral rolls of Dhanore Jaralan, but it was subsequently deleted.
- A certificate of deletion/surrender had been issued confirming the removal of her name from that electoral roll.
She further claimed that:
- After marriage, she had been residing in rented accommodation in Panjgrain.
- She had earlier worked in the same village as a temporary teacher, and produced an official order dated 19 August 2014 evidencing such engagement.
These documents were presented to demonstrate that her residential status remained connected to Panjgrain.
Findings of the Writ Court
The writ petition filed by the appellant was earlier considered by the High Court in its single-judge jurisdiction.
After examining the pleadings and arguments, the writ court dismissed the petition. However, it made an observation that the authorities were free to take an appropriate decision regarding respondent No. 5 in light of another High Court ruling in Ruksana Jabeen v. State of J&K and others (2023) dealing with issues related to the RET Scheme.
Dissatisfied with the dismissal, the appellant filed the present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) before the Division Bench.
Division Bench Examination of the Dispute
The Division Bench noted that certain broader issues concerning the Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme were already pending consideration before the Supreme Court, particularly because the scheme itself had been discontinued.
However, the Court clarified that the present appeal did not involve those broader issues. Instead, the dispute was narrowly limited to determining whether respondent No. 5 remained a resident of Village Panjgrain and therefore eligible for the post.
Court’s Observations on Residence and Eligibility
After reviewing the record, the Court concluded that the appellant failed to substantiate his allegations regarding the respondent’s residence.
The Bench observed that:
- The appellant did not produce credible evidence demonstrating that respondent No. 5 had permanently shifted to another village.
- The official respondents consistently maintained that she remained a resident of Panjgrain.
- Documentary material placed on record supported this position.
A key piece of evidence considered by the Court was the surrender certificate showing that respondent No. 5’s name had been deleted from the electoral roll of Village Dhanore Jaralan.
The Court found that this document strengthened her claim of residence in Panjgrain.
Further, the Court noted that the appellant’s own documents acknowledged that when a village has a predominantly SC/ST population, only candidates from those categories are eligible for engagement. Since respondent No. 5 belonged to the Scheduled Tribe category, she met the relevant criteria.
Court Declines to Interfere with Selection
After examining the entire record, the Division Bench concluded that no grounds existed to interfere with the earlier decision.
The Court held that the appellant had not established any illegality in the selection process or any factual basis to disqualify respondent No. 5.
Consequently, the Bench ruled:
“We do not find any merit in the present appeal so as to warrant interference by this Court.”
Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed along with all connected applications.
Final Decision
The Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, holding that the appellant failed to establish that the selected candidate was ineligible or not a resident of the village concerned.
The Court therefore declined to interfere with the selection panel prepared for engagement of a teacher under the RET Scheme.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
