1. The petitioner in this petition, is seeking a direction to the respondents to make selection for the post of RET teacher in village Maitra Govindpura Zone Ramban strictly in accordance with RET Scheme and the conditions of the Advertisement Notice.
2. The axis of the controversy raised in this petition is that under the Scheme of RET, the primary unit of selection is the revenue village and the eligible candidates of the village where the school with deficiency of staff is situated, are entitled to be considered. The
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
petitioner claims that she is a resident of revenue village Maitra and, therefore, she is entitled to be considered for engagement as RET in upgraded Primary School, Govindpura falling in revenue village Maitra. It is stated that vide advertisement Notification dated 28th January, 2010, the two posts of RETs have been notified for selection in the aforesaid School.
3. It is submitted by the petitioner that in response to the Advertisement Notification dated 28th January, 2010, she along with other eligible candidates of the revenue village Maitra, submitted their application forms and the petitioner being the most meritorious was shown at S. No. 1 in the merit panel prepared by respondent No. 3. However, later on, with a view to accommodate respondent No. 4, respondent No. 3 altered the panel and excluded the petitioner from the zone of selection. Since out of the two posts notified for the upgraded Primary School, Govindpura, one was for Math stream and the other for the medical stream, as such, the petitioner being 10+2 with non-medical claims to have applied for the post in non-medical stream.
4. On being put to notice, the respondents contested the petition by filing their written objections. The case of the petitioner has been resisted by the respondents on the ground that there is no dispute that though Maitra is a revenue village and all eligible candidates belonging to the aforesaid village have a right of consideration, yet a part of revenue village Maitra has become part of Ward No. 7 of Municipal Committee, Ramban. It is submitted by the respondents that since the area where the petitioner resides falls in the urban local limits of Municipal Committee, Ramban, as such, her candidature was not considered. It is thus argued that the area where the petitioner is residing falls in Ward No. 7 of the Municipal Committee, Ramban, the said area has ceased to be a part of the revenue village Maitra.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only question to be determined in this petition is as to whether the area of erstwhile revenue village Maitra, where the house of the petitioner is situated continues to be the part of revenue village Maitra or has ceased to be so by its becoming part of Ward No. 7 of the Municipal Committee, Ramban. If it is held that the area where the house of the petitioner is situated is part of Ward No. 7 of Municipal Committee, Ramban, then by necessary corollary it has to be held that same has ceased to be a part of the revenue village Maitra. It is only if it is held that the petitioner is residing in the area which is part and parcel of revenue village Maitra, the petitioner has a case and would succeed in this petition.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to Annexure-R-1 and R-2 appended with the objections to substantiate his submission that the house of the petitioner is not situated in the area which constitutes revenue village Maitra. Annexure-R-1 is the Ration Card issued by the Tehsil Supply Officer, Consumer Affairs & Public Distribution Department, Ramban, wherein the husband of the petitioner Sh. Madan Lal has been shown to be resident of Maitra Town Tehsil Ramban. Annexure-R-2 is a Voter List in which the name of the petitioner and her husband has been shown at S. Nos. 200 and 199 respectively of Ward No. 7 of Notified Area Committee, Ramban. Both these documents clearly indicate that the petitioner is a resident of an area which now falls in Ward No. 7 of the Notified Area Committee, Ramban, now the Municipal Committee, and, therefore, has ceased to be a part of revenue village Maitra.
7. The petitioner has not placed on record any contrary material to indicate that she continues to be resident of revenue village Maitra. As is admitted by both the sides, the revenue village is the primary unit of selection of RETs and, therefore, the eligible candidates belonging to the village alone are entitled to seek consideration. The petitioner, however, has been found to be resident of Ward No. 7 of the Municipal Committee, Ramban and, therefore, cannot claim to be resident of revenue village Maitra. It is in this context, the respondents in their objections have made a reference to rural Maitra and urban Maitra. To put the record straight, rural Maitra would indicate the area of revenue village whereas urban Maitra would indicate the area which has become part of Ward No. 7 of Municipal Committee, Ramban.
8. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents excluding the petitioner from the zone of selection and preparing the panel from amongst the eligible candidates belonging to revenue village Maitra.
9. Accordingly, the writ petitions fails and is, therefore, dismissed.
10. No costs.