HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU LPA No. 81/2024 in SWP No. 2827/2014 Nusrat Begum .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- M/s Mohd. Ikram Arif & Shakoor A Malik, Advocates v/s UT of J & K & Ors. .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Achal Sharma, Advocate for R-6 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER 07.03.2025 CM No. 2220/2024 1. Respondents have chosen not to file any objections. 2. Mr. Achal Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent states that he does not oppose the condonation of delay, provided the appeal is taken up for consideration. His statement is taken on record. 3. In view of the submission made hereinabove, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. Application disposed of. LPA No. 81/2024 1. This intra court appeal by the appellant-Nusrat Begum is directed against an order and judgment dated 08.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court [“the Writ Court”] in SWP No. 2827/2014, whereby, the Writ Court has dismissed the aforesaid petition filed by the appellant upholding the engagement of Respondent No. 6, namely Mohd. Aslam as RET in New Boys Primary School, Anayatpur, Zone Nowshera. Sr. No. 06 2 LPA No. 81/2024 in SWP No. 2827/2014 2. The impugned judgment is assailed by the appellant primarily on the ground that Respondent No. 6 was not the resident of Village Anayatpur at the time when the notification for filling up the post in question was issued by the official respondents. It is, thus, contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant being most meritorious candidate available in the village concerned was entitled to be engaged as RET in place of Respondent No. 6. 3. Before we advert to the grounds urged by learned counsel for the appellant, we deem it appropriate to notice few material facts, as are germane to determine the controversy raised in this appeal. 4. The Chief Education Officer, Rajouri vide its advertisement notification dated 13.10.2012 invited village-wise applications from the permanent residents of J&K State for the engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher [RET] (Science/Maths Stream) in various newly upgraded Middle Schools including New Primary School, Anayatpur, Zone Nowshera under SSA scheme for the year 2010-11. The appellant as well as respondent no. 6 along with few others responded to the advertisement notification and submitted their applications for the post of RET in New Primary School, Anayatpur, Zone Nowshera. The official respondents conducted the selection process and published a tentative panel. The candidature of the appellant was rejected on the ground that she had failed to produce the PRC to substantiate her residence in the village concerned. Whereas, respondent no. 6, who had submitted his PRC well within time, was shown to be provisionally selected as RET in the school aforesaid. 5. The appellant objected to the panel and inclusion of respondent no. 6 therein as provisionally selected candidate. It was the objection taken by the appellant that respondent no. 6 was actually a resident of Village 3 LPA No. 81/2024 in SWP No. 2827/2014 Barsala, Tehsil Bakori and had obtained his PRC for Village Anayatpur Tehsil Nowshera on 20.11.2013 fraudulently by posing himself a resident of Village Anayatpur, Tehsil Nowshera. The appellant also represented before the Director School Education, Jammu and sought cancellation of the panel prepared by the Zonal Education Officer concerned. When the official respondents did not accept the objection raised by the appellant, the appellant filed SWP No. 2827/2014 seeking inter alia a writ of certiorari for quashing the provisional select panel prepared by the official respondents and published in daily English Newspaper “Daily Excelsior” on 10.09.2014. The appellant also prayed for a direction to the official respondents to appoint her as RET in BPS New Anayatpur, Zone Nowshera being the most meritorious candidate available in the village concerned. 6. During the pendency of the petition, the panel came to be finalized and an order of engagement issued in favour of respondent no. 7. It seems that due to pendency of SWP No. 2827/2014 and the interim directions passed therein, the respondent no. 6, though was allowed to continue in the school, but was not paid his salary. This constrained the respondent no. 6 to file SWP No. 1041/2017 seeking a direction to the official respondent to release his salary. The writ petition filed by the appellant was contested by the official respondents. The Writ Court, having considered the rival stand of the parties and having gone through the material on record, came to the conclusion that respondent no. 6 had surrendered his earlier PRC issued for Village Barsala Tehsil Bakori before the issuance of the advertisement notification in question and had applied for fresh PRC for village Anayatpur. It was also found by the Writ Court that the respondent no. 6 has succeeded in placing on record the PRC issued by the competent authority in time. Apart from this, the 4 LPA No. 81/2024 in SWP No. 2827/2014 Writ Court also came to the conclusion that in the absence of any specific challenge laid to the final selection and engagement of respondent no. 6 as RET, the writ petition filed by the appellant was not maintainable. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the view aforesaid taken by the Writ Court is legally perfect and unquestionable. It is not disputed before us that despite the appellant being aware that the respondent no. 6 has been formally appointed and working as RET in New Boys Primary School, Anayatpur, Zone Nowshera, no effort was made to challenge his appointment either by way of amendment of the pending petition or by filing a fresh petition. As is rightly concluded by the Writ Court, the final selection as well as engagement of the respondent no. 6 has remained unchallenged. 8. That apart, it has amply come on record that the candidature of the appellant came to be rejected on the ground that she had failed to produce her PRC during the course of selection. We also do not find any merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the PRC issued by the competent authority in favour of respondent no. 6 for village Anayatpur is forged and manufactured document. There is no material placed on record to doubt the genuineness of the PRC issued by the competent authority. Otherwise also, had the appellant any grievance with regard to the issuance of PRC of respondent no. 6 for village Anayatpur, it was open for the appellant to approach the competent authority for seeking its cancellation. 9. Like the Writ Court, we are also not persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that respondent no. 6 has managed fresh PRC fraudulently by surrendering the earlier PRC. We could have found some 5 LPA No. 81/2024 in SWP No. 2827/2014 substance in this submission provided the respondent no. 6 had managed the second PRC after the issuance of the advertisement notification. As has come on record, the respondent no. 6 had surrendered earlier PRC well before the advertisement notification and obtained fresh PRC for village Anayatpur. It is not uncommon that the people change their residence from one place to another for various reasons. Shifting of the respondent no. 6 from Village Barsala to Village Anayatpur is not something which is unusual casting doubt on the issue of fresh PRC for Village Anayatpur. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly dismissed along with connected application(s), if any. (Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 07.03.2025 Manan Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No