Kumari Sarika Jaiswal vs State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3265 Jhar

                                      1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                        W. P. (S) No. 3251 of 2019

             Kumari Sarika Jaiswal, aged about 34 years, wife of Amit Kumar,
             Kharichakra, Bouri Tola, P.O. Kharichakra, P.S. Kasmar, Dist.
             Bokaro/Jharkhand                        ...     ...      Petitioner
                                   Versus
          1. State of Jharkhand
          2. The Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Govt. of
             Jharkhand, Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O. Namkum, P.S. Namkum,
             Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand
          3. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
             Commission, Govt. of Jharkhand, Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O.
             Namkum, P.S. Namkum, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand
                                               ...        ...       Respondents
                                   ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Faisal Allam, Advocate : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate : Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate 09/18.08.2022

1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

"a) for issuance of a writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of part of Notice dated 09.5.2019 (ANNEXURE-6) so far it relates to the petitioner by which the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in the Subject of Hindi has been rejected on the ground that the degree of Graduation submitted by the petitioner in which it has been stated that Hindi Essay is compulsory, has not been included and accordingly in terms of Clause 4, her result has not been published for the appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher;

AND

b) for issuance of a writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to publish her results and consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in Bokaro District as the petitioner is already having the qualification as required for the post and his appointment has been rejected on a different Clause which is not applicable in the case of the petitioner;

AND

c) further prays for issuance of a writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to stick to the Rule and qualification required for the post and the same should not be changed once the game is over;

AND

d) Further prays before this Hon'ble Court to stay the operation of the Impugned Notice dated 19.5.2019 (ANNEXURE-6) published by the respondents pending the hearing of the instant writ application;

AND/OR Pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied for Hindi Teacher and the candidature of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that the subject Hindi, at the stage of graduation, was wholly compulsory subject and not the optional subject. The learned counsel has also submitted that in the counter- affidavit, it has also been stated that the petitioner has not obtained the required 40% marks in Hindi.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1715/2019 and the said judgment has been affirmed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 403/2016. The learned counsel has submitted that the judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 1715/2019 has also been followed in W.P. (S) No. 2413/2019 with regard to the same advertisement which is involved in the present case i.e., Advertisement No. 21/2016.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the issue appears to be covered against the petitioner by the aforesaid judgments.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that in connection with the same advertisement i.e., Advertisement No. 21/2016, the issue involved in the present case has been considered and decided against the petitioner in W.P. (S) 1715/2019 which has considered the judgement passed in L.P.A. No. 403/2016.

Paragraph 6 of the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 403/2016 is quoted as under: -

"6. Thus, it appears from the advertisement that if the candidate is applying for the post of Hindi subject, he should have cleared B.A. examination with Hindi subject as a main subject. "in the concerned subject" means a subject for which an application is preferred for being appointed as Assistant Teacher, a candidate must have cleared B.A. Examination or Graduation examination with main subject for which an application is preferred."

7. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, no relief, as prayed for by the petitioner, can be granted in the present writ petition as the petitioner having applied for appointment as a 'Hindi' teacher, had 'Hindi' in her graduation as a compulsory subject only and not as an optional or main subject. This court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order so far it relates to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

8. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul