Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Mar 10: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem has dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal in a Rehbar-e-Taleem appointment dispute from Budgam, holding that once a party has already chosen the civil court route for adjudication of disputed facts, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for the same cause of action.
The appeal was filed by Waheeda Yaseen Khan against the judgment dated September 23, 2021 passed by the writ court in SWP No. 296/2018, whereby her plea seeking quashment of the appointment order dated July 28, 2011 issued in favour of Muzaffar Mohi-ud-Din Mir as ReT Teacher, as well as the enquiry dated April 28, 2011, had been dismissed. The Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem upheld that decision and rejected the appeal.
As per the case, the Zonal Education Officer, Budgam had issued a notification on November 11, 2010 for engagement of two ReT teachers in Upgraded Primary School, New Colony, Ompora, Budgam. Both the appellant and the private respondent had applied, and in the panel prepared thereafter, the appellant figured at Serial No. 3 while the selected candidate was placed at Serial No. 2.
The appellant had objected to the inclusion of the private respondent on the ground that he was allegedly a resident of Batpora, Handwara and was, therefore, ineligible for engagement under the ReT scheme in Ompora. However, an enquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Budgam found that the private respondent possessed a Permanent Resident Certificate of village Ompora, Tehsil Budgam, whereas the appellant held PRC of Srinagar, following which the selected candidate came to be considered entitled for appointment.
The record further showed that the appellant had already instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of her entitlement to appointment as ReT Teacher and also sought restraint against issuance of appointment order in favour of the private respondent. Despite that, she later pursued writ proceedings as well, including an earlier writ petition and then a second writ petition challenging the appointment order and enquiry report on the ground that the selected candidate had secured appointment on the basis of forged and fraudulent documents.
The High Court observed that the core controversy involved disputed questions of fact regarding eligibility and genuineness of residence certificates, matters which were already sub judice before the competent civil court. The Bench held that having chosen the civil suit as the proper forum, the appellant was estopped from successively invoking writ jurisdiction for the same relief, and termed the attempt as forum-shopping.
The Court further ruled that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be converted into that of a civil court, particularly when an equally efficacious alternative remedy exists and has already been availed. It also noted that the appellant had failed to challenge the appointment order in the earlier round of writ litigation, and that the repeated challenge was legally unsustainable.
Finding no merit in the appeal, the Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal and upheld the writ court judgment, thereby bringing the long-drawn ReT appointment dispute to a close at the High Court level.
The post Writ jurisdiction cannot override pending civil adjudication: DB appeared first on Daily Excelsior.