Chandreshwar Tiwary vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 44 Jhar

                                          1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                              W. P. (S) No. 5962 of 2011

                1. Chandreshwar Tiwary, Son of Late Sarju Tiwary, Resident of
                   Tiwary Marhatiya, P.O. Tildag, P.S. Garhwa, District
                   Garhwa (Jharkhand).
                2. Sanjay Kumar, Son of Sri Suryanath Prasad Gupta, Resident
                   of Dandai, P.O. Dandai, P.S. Dandai, District Garhwa.
                                                  ...     ...            Petitioners
                                       Versus
                1. The State of Jharkhand.
                2. The Secretary, Primary Education Human Resources
                   Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
                3. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources
                   Department of Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
                4. The    Deputy      Commissioner-cum-Chairman,         District
                   Education, Garhwa.
                5. The District Superintendent of Education, Garhwa, District
                   Garhwa (Jharkhand).       ...      ...              Respondents
                                       ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

Through Video Conferencing 08/05.01.2022

1. Heard Mr. Jay Prakash Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the grievance of the petitioners is that pursuant to advertisement, the petitioners appeared in examination and was selected by Jharkhand Public Service Commission and their named found place in the list of successful candidates, but they were not appointed on the post of Primary Teacher as they were not trained from duly recognized institution by National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE), although as per advertisement in the year 2002, the requirement of trained teachers was not an essential qualification. The learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by a judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2102/2008 decided on 14.07.2011,

wherein similarly situated persons had moved this Court and relief was granted in their favour.

4. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State has submitted that the petitioners do not have the certificate of training from an institute duly recognized by NCTE. The learned counsel has referred to para-19 of the counter-affidavit and has submitted that the judgment passed in W.P.(S) No. 2102/2008 has already been set-aside by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 447/2011 and accordingly, no relief can be granted to the petitioners.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioners do not possess the training certificate from a duly recognized institution under NCTE being an undisputed fact and the judgment which is said to cover the case of the petitioners i.e., W.P.(C) No. 2102/2008 dated 14.07.2011 has already been set-aside by the Hon'ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 447/2011, no relief can be granted to the writ petitioners in the present case.

6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul