Jharkhand High Court
Akshay Kumar Pradhan And Others vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 11 October, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 4823 of 2014
Akshay Kumar Pradhan and others ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Ms. M.M. Pal, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Mohua Palit, Advocate
: Mr. H. K. Chakrabarty, Advocate
For the Respondents : Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria, Advocate
---
16/11.10.2022
1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the
petitioners belong to BC/MBC Category which is apparent from the
certificate issued with respect to each of the petitioners and annexed
with the writ petition which has been issued by Jharkhand Academic
Council, Ranchi, whereby they have been declared qualified in
Teachers Eligibility Test, 2012 of Assistant Teacher for Class I to V
held in the year 2013. The learned counsel submits that the
candidature of the petitioners was rejected on the sole ground that the
petitioners have less than 60% marks in Teachers Eligibility Test. She
submits that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners
before rejecting their candidature.
3. The learned counsel has also referred to the counter-affidavit at
Annexure-B, which is Jharkhand Elementary School Teachers
Appointment Rules, 2012 dated 05.09.2012 framed under Article 309
of the Constitution of India and has referred to clause 4 (kha), 4 (Ta)
to submit that the persons belonging to SC, ST and OBC category and
handicapped and differently abled persons are eligible upon getting
52% marks and for general category candidates it is 60%. The learned
counsel submits that merely because there was no reservation for
BC/OBC in West Singhbhum District, the same does not disentitle the
petitioners from claiming their eligibility upon scoring less than 60%
and more than 52% marks in the eligibility test.
4. The learned counsel submits that as there was no reservation in
the District of West Singhbhum for BC and OBC, the petitioners had
no option but to apply under the General Category, but the same does
not disentitle or make them ineligible for consideration who were
otherwise eligible in terms of the aforesaid circular dated 05.09.2012.
The learned counsel has submitted that had the respondents given an
opportunity to the petitioners, this aspect of the matter could have
been stated .
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the
other hand, has submitted that as per the counter-affidavit, the
petitioners had applied under the general category and therefore, the
eligibility marks have been treated to be 60%. She has also submitted
that there is no reservation in West Singhbhum District for BC/MBC
and therefore, the petitioners have been treated as general category
candidate for all purposes. However, she does not dispute that in terms
of the aforesaid circular dated 05.09.2012, the persons belonging to
SC/ST/BC/OBC and Handicap category are to be declared as qualified
upon securing only 52% marks and for general category it is 60%. The
Certificate of the petitioners have been brought on record and all the
petitioners belonging to BC or MBC category have secured more than
52% marks and less than 60%.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that so
far as the challenge to the reservation policy is concerned, the same is
of the year 2010. The petitioners have not challenged the
advertisement and therefore, the same has no bearing in the matter of
selection process. The learned counsel has also submitted that the
deserving candidates have already been appointed as per the counter-
affidavit and no private respondent is a party in the present
proceeding.
7. Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
if the relief is granted on the first point of submission, the petitioners
may not have any grievance with regard to the reservation policy and
the candidature of the petitioners can be re-considered by the
respondents taking into consideration that the petitioners are duly
eligible in terms of the statutory rules dated 05.09.2012.
8. Arguments concluded.
9. Post this case tomorrow i.e., on 12.10.2022 for dictation of
judgment at 4:00 p.m.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
