Who is tasked to take the scheme of the Rehbar-e- Taleem out of the mist of confusions and ambiguities which unnecessarily pave the way for avoidable litigations in the courts, is the fundamental question raised via the directives from the Division Bench of the State High Court.
Division Bench of State High Court comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramlingam Sudhakar and Justice Sanjeev Kumar has directed the Chief Secretary to take appropriate remedial measures to bring clarity in the scheme. It may well be noted that just for reasons unknown, the Government has been issuing orders and circulars to supplement the scheme from time to time. In other words, the original scheme has the unit of selection as “village” which means any candidate to have eligibility criteria of necessarily belonging to a village only can apply for the post of Rahbar-e- Taleem in a school where there is assessed deficiency of staff. Under the provisions of Land Revenue Laws and Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act 1996, the term “village” under the said scheme should have been “Revenue Village”.
This term of “village,” the basis of the scheme, has been confused to varied proportions inviting litigations and interpretations through judgments. The official response in the year 2005 has been with intention to clarify and reaffirm that the term used in instructions and orders with regard to the village is to be deemed to have the meaning of a revenue village. It is in the year 2009, the scope for confusion and ambiguity has been provided by expanding the term village by adding explanation to the original scheme promulgated in the year 2000.
We do not understand the rationale behind propounding explanatory passages like “habitation” etc vide Government order of the year 2009 to the original scheme of the year 2000 leading to willful interpretations and avoidable litigations. How could, therefore, selections be carried out transparently and as per the original provisions of the scheme thus defeating the very purpose of it. It is inadvertently thus left to in whatever manner the officials of Public Works, Revenue and Rural Development Departments interpret based on their mere whims.
It is here that litigations and court cases take place. The Division Bench of the High Court has thus observed,”…this was mostly because of the reason that the term “habitation” as used in the order is not traceable to land laws and is not defined in the Land Revenue Act or anywhere else.”
It is fervently expected from the Government to clear the clouds of confusions and disorientation engulfing this scheme which was meant otherwise to operationalise schooling at village level and exclusively meant for spreading school education in rural areas. The village is cardinal and basic to the scheme as the teacher is supposed to be selected from among the people of the village with necessary qualifications. How can there be unnecessary distraction on the foundation stone of the scheme, the “village”? The cooperation of the teacher and the village committee with their respective roles in this regard should not be thrown, unsuspectingly though, into jeopardy.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel