Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3932 Jhar

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              L. P. A. No. 328 of 2019
       Rakesh Kumar                                                  ---     Appellant
                                             Versus
       1.    State of Jharkhand, the Principal Secretary, School
             Education and Literacy Department, Government of
             Jharkhand, Ranchi
       2.    Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department,
             Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
       3.    Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand,
             Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi
       4.    District Education Establishment Committee, Dumka
       5.    Deputy Commissioner, Dumka
       6.    District Superintendent of Education, Dumka         ..... Respondents

       CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
                 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

       For the Appellant : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate
       For the Respondents : Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, G.A.-V
                             Mr. Amit Raj Kisku, A.C to G.A.-V
                                             ----

07/26.09.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 05.12.2018 passed by learned Writ Court, which reads as under:

"This writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the Respondent Authority to appoint the petitioner as Intermediate Trained Teacher (Primary Teacher) for Class I to V in the District-Dumka in connection with Advertisement No. 01/06-2015.

According to the petitioner he has applied in terms of aforesaid Advertisement for consideration of his candidature but even though he is eligible and qualified he has not been selected and hence this writ petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 has submitted that it is not so that the case of petitioner has not been considered rather the case of the petitioner has been considered properly by the duly selected committee and since the petitioner has not secured 60 % marks i.e., 90 out of 150 rather secured 87 marks in the TET examination, has not been recommended for selection. Further averments has been made at paragraph 14, 15, and 16 the candidates who have secured more than 60% marks have been recommended for selection and therefore, has been committed no error in the selection process by the selection committee.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, it is evident that the petitioner has claimed to be appointed as Intermediate Trained Teacher, Advertisement No. 01/06- 2015.

It is evident from the material available on record and the counter- affidavits that the Jharkhand Academic Council, has constituted a selection committee, the selection process has been initiated and concluded, as per the process of selection, 60% is required to be passed in TET examination but the petitioner has obtained 87 marks and therefore he has secured lesser marks than the qualifying marks for selection.

In view thereof, there is no error in the process of selection and accordingly, there is no merit in this writ petition. Hence, it is dismissed."

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has laboured to impress that though, in the merit-list (Annexure-5) at Page-53 at Sr. No. 1045, in the

computation of marks, 2 marks have been added for the TET Results, but appointment has not been given since appellant has been treated to be unqualified in the TET Exam having secured 87 marks i.e. less than 60% marks i.e., 90 out of 150. This appointment was to be made on the post of Intermediate Trained Teachers (Primary Teachers) for Class- I to V in the district of Dumka under Advertisement no. 1/06-2015. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that appellant had applied for appointment as Intermediate Trained Teacher in General Category but had appeared in TET Exam as a Backward Category Candidate. It is submitted that one Baleshwar Mondal who had got 59.58% marks in TET had been called for in 6th counselling in General Category. As such, appellant has wrongly been disqualified in the TET results, though he belongs to Backward Category.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has specifically referred to paragraph no. 13 of the counter affidavit which categorically states that appellant belonged to General Category Candidate under Advertisement no. 95/2013 published by Jharkhand Academic Council. The minimum marks for TET qualification was 90 out of 150 but petitioner having got 87 marks was not eligible to be included in the merit list. In the succeeding paragraph 15, it has also answered the contention of the petitioner that Baleshwar Mandal had got 116 marks in different exam hence his name was included in the merit list.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to the Advertisement at Annexure-4 and the Rules under which such appointment is to be made. The Rules have been annexed to the counter affidavit. A mere perusal of Rule 5 which relates to TET qualification at sub para (V) shows that for qualifying in the TET Exam, 60% marks was required. However, for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Backward Class and Handicapped Category, the qualifying marks was 52%.

6. On being specifically asked, at no place in the pleadings of the writ petition or through any document enclosed, learned counsel for the appellant has been able to show that the appellant had applied as a Backward Category Candidate in the TET Exam or there is a certificate of Backward Class in favour of the petitioner on record. The contention of the respondent in their counter affidavit have neither been re-joined. Learned Single Judge

considered the narrow issue involved in the writ petition as to whether disqualification of the petitioner in TET exam was proper or not? Since the petitioner had obtained 87 marks i.e. less than 90 marks out of 150 i.e. less than 60%, he was found not qualified in the TET exam. Rest of the relevant rules relating to computation of marks at different stages in the academic carrier of the candidate would have no meaning if the TET qualification was not there. Therefore, learned Single Judge refused to interfere in the matter finding no error in the process of selection.

7. Having given anxious thought to the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the relevant documents and pleadings relied from the records, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Jk