SWP No.1270/2016 Page No. 1 of 12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 31.05.2025 Pronounced on:04.07.2025 SWP No.1270/2016 ULFAT MAJNOON …PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. N. A Khan, Advocate. Vs. STATE OF J&K AND OTHRS …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Mr. Allau-ud-Din Ganai, AAG, with Ms. Shaila Shameem, Assisting Counsel-for R1 to R4. Mr. N. A. Tabasum, Advocate-for R5. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) The petitioner has challenged order No.ZEOK/RT/ UEGS/2011/649-51 dated 22.06.2011, issued by respondent No.4, whereby respondent No.5 has been engaged as Rehbar-i-Taleem (ReT) in Primary School, Wani Mohalla, Haihama Kupwara. 2) As per case of the petitioner, pursuant to the Advertisement Notice dated 21.04.2010, issued by respondent No.4 for filling up of the posts of ReT in various schools including Primary School, Wani Mohalla Manzhar, she submitted her application along with requisite documents. It has been submitted that the petitioner was SWP No.1270/2016 Page No. 2 of 12 the most meritorious candidate and was also eligible for the said post but when the panel was framed, her name was not reflected therein. It has been contended that the petitioner was informed that she had not applied pursuant to the Advertisement Notice but when she sought information under Right to Information Act, she, in terms of communication dated 29.11.2011, was informed that she had never applied for the said post. 3) According to the petitioner, she made a complaint to respondents No.1 and 2, pursuant whereto, respondent No.2 directed holding of an enquiry regarding the fact whether or not the petitioner had applied for the post. Accordingly, Principal, Girls Higher Secondary School, Kupwara, was directed to hold an enquiry into the matter. Vide enquiry report dated 06.10.2012, the Principal confirmed the fact that the petitioner had applied for the post. It has been further contended that despite repot of the Principal, Girls Higher Secondary School, Kupwara, no action was taken by the official respondents to redress the grievances of the petitioner, which compelled her to approach the Directorate of School Education. Vide communication dated 19.01.2013, respondent No.3 was directed to verify the matter personally. It has been submitted that the petitioner was assured that her grievance would be redressed but instead of doing so, SWP No.1270/2016 Page No. 3 of 12 the official respondents illegally engaged respondent No.5 in terms of impugned order dated 22.06.2011. 4) The petitioner has challenged the impugned action of the respondents on the grounds that the engagement of respondent No.5 is against the law, inasmuch as the petitioner happens to be the most meritorious candidate having secured 359/600 marks in 10+2 and 929/1800 marks in B. Sc. whereas respondent No.5 has obtained only 264/600 marks in 10+2 and 778/1800 in B.A. It has been contended that the petitioner had applied for the post well in time but her application form has not been considered by the official respondents. 5) The official respondents, in their reply to the writ petition, have contended that the petitioner had not applied for the post of ReT pursuant to the Advertisement Noice dated 21.04.2010. It has been submitted that after scrutinization of the applications, a list of eight candidates was framed in respect of the candidates who were falling in the habitation. It has been submitted that respondent No.5 was falling at serial No.1 in the panel and, accordingly, a tentative selection list of the candidates was published in the newspaper inviting objections to the list. It has been contended that only one person, namely, Irshad Ahmad Wani submitted his objections. On the basis of the report SWP No.1270/2016 Page No. 4 of 12 submitted by DEPO and ZEPO, Kupwara, the objections of said Irshad Ahamd Wani were found without any merit and it was also found that the candidature of respondent No.5 is genuine. 6) It has been claimed that after the expiry of the time for filing objections and after publication of the selection list in the newspaper, the petitioner herein, who had neither applied for the said post nor submitted any objection to the tentative selection list, approached the official respondents with the plea that she belongs to Qasba Haihama without filing any formal written application. It has been further contended that the Chief Education Officer, Kupwara, vide letter dated 25.10.2005, was requested to visit the spot to finalise the selection process. Upon his visit to the location/habitation, the Chief Education Officer and his associates verified the matter personally and after verification, it was found that the complaint lodged by the petitioner is baseless as she resides more than one kilometre away from the school. It was also found that the petitioner is not a resident of Wani Mohalla habitation and her house is about two kilometres away from Wani Mohalla. 7) The official respondents have further contended that the report of the Principal Government Higher Secondary SWP No.1270/2016 Page No. 5 of 12 School Kupwara is baseless and, in fact, a fake list of 16 candidates was prepared after the transfer of Zonal Education Officer, Kupwara, in which name of the petitioner was included. It has been further submitted that the panel of 8 candidates in respect of Primary School Wani Mohalla was prepared by the competent authority in consultation with the Village Education Committee and the report prepared by the Principal Government Higher Secondary School, Kupwara, is fake which has been prepared after the transfer of Zonal Education Officer, Kupwara, as well as after the retirement of ZEPO Kupwara. 8) During pendency of the writ petition, an interim order came to be passed by this Court on 21.07.2023, whereby the Court observed that it would be proper to get the enquiry with regard to these facts and circumstances conducted by an independent authority. Accordingly, Deputy Commissioner Kupwara was directed to hold an enquiry with regard to the fact as to whether the petitioner had applied pursuant to Advertisement Notice dated 21st April 2010 as also with regard to her residence. Pursuant to this order, the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, has submitted her report dated 12th of August 2024. The petitioner was also called upon to produce the original receipt with regard to her application form which she has produced before this Court. SWP No.1270/2016 Page No. 6 of 12 9) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 10) The main contention of the petitioner is that she had applied for the post of ReT for Primary School Wani Mohalla pursuant to Advertisement Notice dated 21.04.2010 and despite being most meritorious candidate, her candidature was not considered by the official respondents, which resulted in issuance of impugned engagement order dated 22.06.2011 in favour of respondent No.5. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner had not applied for the said post and that she does not belong to the relevant habitation. While the petitioner relies upon the report dated 06.10.2012 of the Principal Higher Secondary School, Kupwara, and the copy of the list of 16 candidates stated to have been prepared by the ZEO, Kupwara, the respondents claim that the report dated 06.10.2012 is not based upon any record and that the list of 16 candidates, upon which the petitioner has placed reliance, is fake and non-existent. To support their contention, the official respondents have produced the relevant record before this Court. 11) A perusal of the record produced by the official respondents would reveal that 8 candidates were found eligible for selection and this list does not contain the name SWP No.1270/2016 Page No. 7 of 12 of the petitioner. The record also contains a list of 15 candidates who had applied for the post in question for Primary School, Wani Mohalla Mazhar. Here also the name of the petitioner does not figure. There is a presumption of correctness attached to the record produced by an authority, who, in the normal course of business, is authorised to maintain the record. Thus, it has to be presumed, unless proved otherwise, that the petitioner had not applied for the post of ReT for Primary School Wani Mohalla Mazhar. 12) The petitioner, in order to rebut this presumption, has relied upon the report of the Principal, Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Kupwara, who in his report dated 06.10.2012 has observed that on 03.10.2012 he received statement of I/C ReT engagement, Shri Ghulam Nabi Rather, who also produced the original application file along with the photocopy of the master list containing the names of 16 candidates including the name of the petitioner who was falling at serial No.12. It has also been indicated in the said report that that then I/C ReT engagement accepted having received the application and that he had handed over all the 16 files to Mr. Sohan Lal, ex ZEPO Kupwara for verification for preparation of panel. It is also indicated in the said report that on 23.11.2010, the then ZEO had directed the then ZEPO to prepare the panel out of 16 candidates on SWP No.1270/2016 Page No. 8 of 12 habitation basis. However, on 28.11.2011, the then ZEO declined having received the application of the petitioner and this fact was seconded by the statement of present I/C of ReT engagement. On the basis of these observations, the Principal reported that there is some conspiracy. The petitioner has also placed on record a copy of the list of 16 candidates in which her name does figure. 13) Pursuant to order dated 21.07.2023 passed by this Court, the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, has furnished her report. Although in the said report, the Deputy Commissioner has not recorded any final conclusion and has observed that it is necessary to verify the authenticity of the documents/receipts/signatures by obtaining a factual report from the Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory, yet the Deputy Commissioner has, on the basis of the records and after hearing the parties, noted the following points: 1. That the receipt enclosed with the written representation of petitioner with regard to submission of file for engagement as ReT reveal that the receipt is dated at the bottom as 03-05-2010, but the body of receipt depicts that the file has been received on 04-05-2010 which creates doubt with regard to submission of file by the petitioner in time. 2. The contention of the petitioner that she has filed objections is not substantiated by any receipt in respect of submission of objections. 3. The first receipt which the applicant has placed on record is dated 01-01-2011 but the same doesn't SWP No.1270/2016 Page No. 9 of 12 depict by whom the application has been filed, even if same is taken to have been filed by the petitioner, then the first correspondence of petitioner with the Department is established from 01-01-2011 and another receipt with regard to filing of complaint which has been filed by Ulfat Majnoon (petitioner) as daughter of Mohammad Majnoon Khan is dated 01- 12-2011, the entire process for selection was culminated on 16-06-2011 and the engagement order was issued on 22-06-2011. It is also inferred from the records that one Irshad Ahmad S/o Gh Nabi Wani R/o Wani Mohalla has filed objections and same have been considered and disposed of on the recommendations of the then DEPO Kupwara prior to the engagement and NOC in this regard was issued by ZEO Kupwara on 06-05-2011. 4. That the prayer clause of the representation of petitioner reveals that petitioner claims to be a meritorious and married within the habitation but has not filed proof of marriage and has not mentioned the date of marriage which could suggest the habitation status of petitioner as on the date of advertisement. 5. That the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer namely Abdul Rasheed Lone, the then Principal GHSS Kupwara reveals that the enquiry officer has prepared his report on the basis of records provided to him by Ex In-charge ReT Gh Nabi Rather who produced the application file of the petitioner along with the Photostat copy of the master copy of 16 candidates including the name of the petitioner. The enquiry Officer on this basis submitted report with the observation that the petitioner has applied in the due course of time as it is reflected in the master list of the candidates. The enquiry officer has finalized the report without taking to consideration the negation of the record of the petitioner's file, made by ZEO concerned and the same report of ZEO is seconded by the statement of present in-charge of ReT engagement. 14) From the above, it is clear that the receipt produced by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner contains discrepancies in the dates, inasmuch as at the bottom of the receipt the date mentioned is 03.05.2010 but in the body of SWP No.1270/2016 Page No. 10 of 12 the receipt, the date mentioned is 04.05.2010. It is pertinent to mention here that the original receipt produced by the petitioner before this Court does not bear the seal of any office and it does not even bear the receipt number of the office. This creates doubt about the genuineness of the receipt. The Deputy Commissioner has further observed that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had filed any objection to the tentative selection list/panel. It has also been noted by the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioner had filed complaint on 01.12.2011 and by that time, the entire process of selection had culminated on 16.06.2011. 15) Regarding enquiry report of the Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Kupwara, the Deputy Commissioner has noted that the said report is based upon the records provided to him by ex-incharge ReT Ghulam Nabi Rather. However, it has been further noted by the Deputy Commissioner that the enquiry officer has finalized his report without taking into consideration the contrary stand taken by the Zonal Education Officer concerned which was seconded by the statement of present incharge of ReT engagements. The Deputy Commissioner has also observed that the petitioner has not been able to produce proof regarding her habitation status. SWP No.1270/2016 Page No. 11 of 12 16) In the face of aforesaid observations of the Deputy Commissioner, who is an independent authority, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has succeeded in rebutting the presumption about the genuineness and correctness of the official records produced by the official respondents, which do not contain the application filed by the petitioner nor her name is reflected in any of the lists available in the said record. In the face of this position, the version given by the petitioner in the writ petition cannot be accepted and her claim deserves to be declined. 17) Apart from the above, the impugned engagement order has been issued on 22.06.2011, whereas the present writ petition has been filed about five years thereafter in the month of June, 2016. The petitioner obtained information about the reasons for her exclusion on 29.11.2011, when her RTI query was responded to but she did not approach the Court for redressal of her grievance for more than four years thereafter. Thus, petitioner by her conduct has acquiesced in the impugned action of the respondents. Although there is no fixed limitation period for writ petitions, yet the Courts expect diligent action from the litigants and it is open to a Writ Court to decline exercise of its writ jurisdiction if the delay is not properly explained. In the present case, the petitioner has not offered any cogent explanation for SWP No.1270/2016 Page No. 12 of 12 approaching this Court belatedly. On this ground also, this Court declines to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. 18) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the petition. The same is dismissed accordingly. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. 19) The record be returned to the learned counsel for the official respondents. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar, 04.07.2025 “Bhat Altaf” Whether the order is reportable: YES/NO