Chanda Bano vs State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2696 Jhar

                                   1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   W.P.(S) No. 2293 of 2023
1.    Chanda Bano
2.    Gita Kumari
3.    Sushmita Tigga
4.    Suresh Chandra Mahto
5.    Naresh Chandra Mahto
6.    Bhutesh Thakur
7.    Satyarupa Gupta
8.    Promila Sunita Dang
9.    Sunita Bara
10.   Anumala Verma
11.   Rajni Geeta Kujur
12.   Pramod Pathak
13.   Georgina Ekka
14.   Aruna Lakra
15.   Suwandeo Bhagat
16.   Anima Toppo
17.   Sabita Kumari
18.   Sheetal Chhaya Sirka
19.   Meena Kumari                             ....    Petitioners
                               Versus
1.    State of Jharkhand
2.    School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand
      through its Secretary, Ranchi.
3.    Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy
      Department, Ranchi.
4.    Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department through
      its Secretary, Ranchi.
5.    Deputy       Commissioner-cum-Chairman,        District Education
      Establishment Committee (Secondary Education), Ranchi.
6.    Deputy       Commissioner-cum-Chairman,        District Education
      Establishment Committee (Secondary Education) Lohardaga.
7.    Deputy       Commissioner-cum-Chairman,        District Education
      Establishment Committee (Secondary Education) Gumla.
8.    Deputy       Commissioner-cum-Chairman,        District Education
      Establishment Committee (Secondary Education) East Singhbhum,
      Jamsehdpur.
9.    Deputy       Commissioner-cum-Chairman,        District Education
      Establishment Committee (Secondary Education) Seraikella-
      Kharsawan.
10.   Deputy       Commissioner-cum-Chairman,        District Education
      Establishment Committee (Secondary Education) West Singhbhum,
      Chaibasa.
11.   District Education Officer, Ranchi.
12.   District Education Officer, Lohardaga.
13.   District Education Officer, Gumla.
14.   District Education Officer, East Singhbhum.
15.   District Education Officer, Saraikella-Kharsawan.
                                             2




      16. District Education Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa.
       17. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, Ranchi.
                                                              .... Respondents
                               ------

CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK

------

     For the Petitioners           : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
                                      Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate
     For the Resp-State            : Mr. Jai Prakash, AAG-IA
                                      Ms. Omya Anushka, AC to AAG-IA
     For the Resp-JSSC            :   Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate
                                      Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate
                               -----
4 / 8.8.2022       Heard the parties.

2. The petitioners are seeking appointment on the post of Graduate Trained Teachers in Sanskrit subjects in Government Secondary Schools, pursuant to Advertisement No. 21/2016 floated by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. Challenge has also been thrown to the order contained in letter no. 814 dated 14.3.2023, whereby the Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, has rejected the candidatures of petitioners, despite the recommendation made by respondent-Commission for appointment.

3. Sans unnecessary details, the relevant facts of the case are that Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission floated an Advertisement No. 21/2016 for holding Combined Graduate Trained Teachers Competitive Examination welcoming applications from eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in various subjects. Minimum educational qualification for appearing in the said examination was mentioned in Clause 4(2) of the advertisement, which stipulates that a candidate must have a bachelor's degree from an Institution recognized by the State Government or the Central Government or the University Grants Commission with at least 45% marks in the concerned subject in which appointment has to be made However, for SC/ST candidates, minimum 40% of marks in the concerned subject is required. The petitioners being eligible in all respects applied for such appointment in the subject Sanskrit for different districts. Having the candidatures of the petitioners were found to be in order, admit cards were issued to them. The petitioners did well and they were hopeful for their selection. Finally the result also came to the expectation of the petitioners and

the names of petitioners were appeared in the final select list. It is further case of the petitioners that in several other occasions, appointments have been made to other candidates in the subjects where the subject of the selection was subsidiary subjects in the graduation and not the main subjects. Such candidates' names have been mentioned in para-16 of the writ petition. Thereafter, the testimonials of the petitioners were verified by the authority. However, the Government has issued a letter no. 814 dated 14.3.2023, whereby altogether eighty five candidates said to have been found eligible for appointment, which do not include the names of these petitioners and hence, the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the said order and thereby issue a direction for their appointments.

4. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondent-State as well as respondent-Commission. It is stated inter alia therein that the Government has framed Rules, known as 'Jharkhand Government Secondary School Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff Appointment and Service Conditions Rules, 2015'. Rule 9 thereof provides for qualification of Graduate Trained Teacher to the effect that a Bachelor's degree from an Institution recognized by the Government with minimum 45% marks in the subject in which the appointment is made shall be compulsory and for SC/ST candidates, graduation degree with minimum 40% marks will be mandatory. It is also stated that for appointment in Prachya Bhasa subject (Sanskrit, Farsi, Urdu and Arbi) degree of Acharya (Sahitya or Vyakaran for subject Sanskrit), degree of Fazil (for subject Farsi, Urdu, Arbi) or postgraduate degree in the aforesaid subjects is mandatory. Meaning thereby, the subject in which the candidate has applied for, should be a Main subject and not a subsidiary subject. Since the petitioners have not possessed even the minimum educational qualification in the concerned subject in which they seek appointment with minimum 45% marks, their candidatures have been rejected, strictly as per terms and conditions of the said Rules 2015 read with the advertisement and also in the light of order passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 403 of 2016, decided on 10.5.2018, wherein, the issue has been decided that if the candidate is applying for post of concerned subject, he should have cleared the graduation examination in the same concerned subject as the main subject.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argues that though

the names of the petitioners have been recommend by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, but yet they have not been appointed. It is the State which has not considered the recommendation of the Commission and has rejected the claim of the petitioners arbitrarily and illegally. He further argues that as per the advertisement, the petitioners fulfil the requisite qualifications and qualified in the examination and therefore, their cases have been recommended by the Commission. He also submits that the candidates having similar qualifications were appointed in other districts of the State, which amounts to discrimination. Learned counsel also submits that the facts of judgment rendered in L.P.A. No. 403 of 2016 are not at all applicable in the facts and situation of the present case because terms and conditions of the advertisement was different. Therefore, the reasoning assigned by the State for not appointing the petitioners is not tenable in the eyes of law and the same is fit to be quashed and set aside. Alternatively, learned counsel submits that petitioner nos. 1, 5 and 6 are postgraduates and their cases ought to have been considered by the respondents for appointment.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Piprawal, learned counsel, assisted by Mr. Prince Kumar, learned counsel, representing the respondent- Commission submits that even though there is recommendation of Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, such recommendation is subject to scrutiny by the State, after due verifications of testimonials of the candidates. It is the State which makes final decision for appointment. After verification of testimonials of candidates, it has come to notice that since the petitioners do not fulfil the requisite qualification, rightly their candidatures have been turned down by the State. Learned counsel further submits that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been set at rest in L.P.A. No. 403 of 2016 and as such, in view of decision of the Court, no interference is required to be called for. Justifying the stand of the State, learned counsel submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the State for not appointing the petitioners.

7. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned Addl. A.G., assisted by Ms. Omya Anushka, learned AC to Addl. AG, representing the State submits that in view of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 403 of 2016, which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the case of the petitioners has rightly been rejected and as such, there is no illegality in

the impugned rejection order, as the petitioners are not graduate with Sanskrit as main subject, rather, they had Sanskrit either as MIL or a subsidiary subject.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the records, this Court is of the view that no case is made by the petitioners for interference for the following facts and reasons:-

(i) In the advertisement published by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, it was clearly mentioned that the candidates of unreserved category must have 45% marks and for candidates of SC/ST category, must have 40% marks in the concerned subject, in which, he/she seeks appointment. Admittedly the petitioners have applied for Sanskrit subject and they are not graduates in Sanskrit as main subject, rather, Sanskrit subject are their subsidiary or MIL.

(ii) It is also no doubt true that the petitioners have been recommended by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission for appointment. Merely because their names have been recommended, it cannot be said that letter of appointment has to be issued. The State is the final Authority to take decision in the matter of appointment and before taking decision, the State has to look into the entire recommendation of the Commission.

(iii) On scrutiny, it was found that these petitioners do not fulfil the requisite qualifications, in terms of the Appointment Rules, 2015 read with clause 4(2) of the Advertisement.

(iv) The issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5210 of 2015 and the same has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 403 of 2016, as also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P.(C) Diary No. 549 of 2023.

(v) The Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 403 of 2016 held as under:-

"4. It appears that in B.A. Examination, one subject is main subject and other though are compulsory as subsidiary subject. Thus, the main subject of these appellants are Political Science and not Hindi.

5. Looking to the requirement of the advertisement, which is at Annexure-1, to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal dated 12th October, 2011, and especially the Condition no.(kha) (i), it requires that the general category candidate

must have obtained 45% of marks in the concerned subject and for scheduled caste category, candidate is required 40% marks in the concerned subject, for which an application has been preferred for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher.

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 the facts of the present case, it appears that these two appellants have done B.A. in Political Science. Thus, the main subject of these appellants was Political Science and not Hindi. Hence, they cannot be appointed for the post of Assistant Teacher for Hindi subject. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(S) no.5210 of 2015 vide judgment and order dated 20th July, 2016, and hence, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is therefore, dismissed."

(vi) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the terms and conditions of the present advertisement are different to the terms and conditions of advertisement under challenged in L.P.A. No. 403 of 2016 because the literal meaning of both the advertisements are same. Learned counsel for the petitioners has to understand the literal meaning of the Legislation. It appears that the learned counsel has understood the purposive meaning of the advertisement. It is always open that rules were interpreted literally and not purposively. It is well settled principle of law that once judicial pronouncement overrides any circular, guidelines, and / or the rules of the State, the same has to be considered by everybody.

(vii) It was also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner nos. 1, 5 and 6 have obtained the qualification of post- graduation, but nothing has been brought on record to show that while filling up the online application form, whether they have mentioned the post-graduation degree or not. However, it is open for them to make a fresh representation bringing it to the notice of the respondents. It is made clear that if it is found that petitioner

nos. 1, 5 and 6 have filled up the online application form mentioning therein post-graduation degree, the respondents shall consider the same and take a decision thereon within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.

9. As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, regulations, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, no interference is warranted in the writ petition.

The writ petition merits dismissal and hence, it is dismissed.

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) R.Kr.