Jharkhand High Court
Abhijit Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 6 February, 2024
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No.1393 of 2019
-----
Abhijit Kumar Gupta .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal
Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department,
Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Project Building,
Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. The District Education Officer, Deoghar.
4. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its
Secretary, Kalinagar, Namkum, Ranchi.
5. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, Kalinagar, Namkum, Ranchi.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
For the State : Mr. K. C. Suman, A.C. to G.P.II
For JSSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
-----
Order No.09 Date: 06.02.2024
1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of
direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the
petitioner for appointment on the post of Trained Graduate
Teacher (TGT) in the subject 'History and Civics' (Direct
Recruitment) for Deoghar district pursuant to Advertisement
No.21/2016 issued by the Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission (JSSC) for making appointment of Trained
Graduate Teachers of different subjects in Government
Secondary Schools of all the districts of the State of Jharkhand.
Further prayer has been made for quashing and setting aside
the part of the important notice No.6864 dated 05.12.2018
(Annexure- 10), so far it relates to the petitioner whose
rejection remark has been mentioned at Serial No.8 of the
subject 'History and Civics' (Direct Recruitment), whereby his
candidature has been treated under unreserved category
despite producing the certificate of BC-II category dated
17.03.2018 in course of document verification.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Advertisement
No.21/2016 was published by the Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission (JSSC) for conducting Combined Graduate Trained
Teacher Competitive Examination, 2016 with respect
to appointment on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher of
various subjects including the subject History and Civics in
Government Secondary Schools of the State of Jharkhand.
Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner submitted
his application for appointment on the said post in the subject
'History and Civics' under Direct Recruitment being a candidate
of BC-II category and appeared in the written examination held
on 19.11.2017. He qualified in the written examination and by
way of an important notice he was asked to appear for
documents verification on 26.09.2018 whereupon he appeared
and produced all the required certificates including
caste certificates dated 19.12.2016 and 17.03.2018 issued by
the Circle Officer, Mohanpur and the Sub- Divisional Officer,
Deoghar, respectively. However, a show cause notice dated
26.09.2018 was issued to the petitioner whereby he was asked
to produce valid caste certificate by 03.10.2018, as he had
submitted caste certificate of BC-II category issued by the
Circle Officer at the time of filling up online application form.
The petitioner replied the said notice stating inter alia that the
caste certificate dated 17.03.2018 issued by the Sub-divisional
Officer, Deoghar should be considered for extending the
benefit of reservation under BC-II category. However, in the
final result published and uploaded on the website of the
Commission, the roll number of the petitioner did not
figure. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed vide important
notice No.6864 dated 05.12.2018 that his caste certificate of
B.C.-II category was rejected and he was treated under
unreserved category. Subsequently, he made a representation
before the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi on
31.12.2018 requesting to consider his case for appointment
under BC-II category which remained unresponded.
3. It is also submitted that the petitioner secured 232 marks,
whereas the last selected candidate under BC-II category
secured 228 marks and as such he has got more marks than
the last selected candidate of BC-II category, however, since
the petitioner was not treated under BC-II category, he was
not selected for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in the
subject 'History and Civics' pursuant to the said
advertisement.
4. It is further submitted that the action of the respondent-JSSC
in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner under BC-II
category is highly arbitrary, illegal and colourable exercise of
power in view of the fact that on the date of
counselling/document verification, he had produced all the
certificates including caste certificate dated 17.03.2018 issued
by the Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar. The respondents
were duty bound to treat the petitioner's candidature under
BC-II category, as he had produced a valid caste certificate
issued by the competent authority on the date of counselling.
5. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-JSSC submits that the JSSC had published the said
advertisement for conducting Combined Graduate Trained
Teacher Competitive Examination, 2016 and the petitioner had
submitted his online application form for selection on the post
of Trained Graduate Teacher in the subject 'History and Civics'
for Deoghar district under BC-II Category. The JSSC conducted
written examination and the shortlisted candidates were called
for documents verification. Thereafter, merit list was prepared
and successful candidates were recommended for
appointment on the post of Trained Graduate Teachers in
various subjects. The petitioner was not declared successful
for appointment on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in
the subject 'History & Civics'. He was informed vide Important
Notice No.6864 dated 05.12.2018 that his candidature was
considered under general category due to non-submission of
valid caste certificate of BC-II category till last date of
submission of application form i.e. on 25.04.2017. Further, the
final result of the said examination became the subject matter
of various writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.1387 of 2017 (Soni
Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others) and other
analogous cases filed before this Court. The said writ petitions
were allowed by the Full Bench of this Court vide judgment
dated 21.09.2020, reported in (2020) 4 JBCI 207 (FB)
(HC), by quashing the appointments made in the scheduled
districts observing that reserving the posts by the State for
those who were residents of particular districts of the State of
Jharkhand was unconstitutional. The said judgment of the Full
Bench was challenged by the appointed candidates of the
scheduled districts before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by
preferring Civil Appeal No.4038 of 2022 [Satyajit Kumar &
Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.] and other
analogous appeals. Thereafter, in the light of the judgment
dated 2.8.2022 passed in the said appeals, reported in
(2022) SCC online SC 954, and the orders dated 2.12.2022
& 15.12.2022 passed in Contempt Petition (C)
No.612/2022 arising out of Civil Appeal No.4044 of
2022 (Soni Kumari & Ors. Vs. K. Ravi Kumar and Ors.)
and other analogous cases, the JSSC published the revised
result on the basis of State-wise merit list, in which the
petitioner was not declared successful, as he had secured 232
marks, whereas the last successful candidate under BC-II
category for subject 'History and Civics' had secured 242
marks.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials placed on record.
7. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the petitioner produced valid caste certificate of BC-II
category in course of document verification, however, his
candidature for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher was
arbitrarily considered under general category. It has further
been contended that since the petitioner had secured more
marks than the last selected candidate under BC-II category
for the subject 'History and Civics', he has indefeasible right to
be considered for appointment under the said category.
8. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, this Court has perused the Important Notice
no.6864 dated 05.12.2018 from which it transpires that the
candidature of the petitioner for the post of TGT (History and
Civics) under BC-II category was not considered on the ground
that he had failed to produce valid caste certificate as per
clause 4(K)(V)(ii) of the said notice till last date of submission
of the application (i.e. till 25.04.2017) and as such his
candidature was considered under general category.
9. Clause 8(V)(i) of the Advertisement No.21/2016 provides that
a candidate who is claiming reservation is required to submit
caste certificate issued in the prescribed format by the Deputy
Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer of the concerned
district/sub-division. For BC-II category, the candidate was
required to submit caste certificate in the format given in
Appendix-II of the said advertisement. Further, the caste
certificate was essentially required to be issued after
02.06.2016 and before or till the last date of submission of the
application form i.e. 25.4.2017. Clause 9(ii) of the said
advertisement further mentions that the candidate was
required to fill the certificate number and date of issuance of
the caste certificate in the online application form.
10. The claim of the petitioner is that at the time of document
verification he had produced two caste certificates; one issued
on 19.12.2016 by the Circle Officer, Mohanpur and another
issued on 17.03.2018 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar.
So far as the caste certificate dated 19.12.2016 was
concerned, the same was not issued by the Deputy
Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer as was mandated in
Clause 8 of the said advertisement and as such it was not
accepted. So far as the caste certificate dated 17.03.2018
issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar was concerned,
the same was issued after the last date of submission of the
application form and obviously details of the same was not
mentioned in the online application form and as such the said
caste certificate was also not accepted by the respondent-JSSC
as valid for consideration of his candidature under BC-II
category. Thus, this Court does not find any infirmity in the
decision taken by the respondent-JSSC in treating the
petitioner under general/unreserved category candidate.
11. That apart, the specific stand of the respondent-JSSC is that
as per State wise merit list prepared pursuant to the order
dated 2.8.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Satyajit Kumar (Supra.) and orders dated 2.12.2022
& 15.12.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Contempt Petition (C) No. 612/2022 arising out of Civil
Appeal No.4044 of 2022 (Soni Kumari & Ors. Vs. K. Ravi
Kumar and Ors.) and other analogous cases, the last
selected candidate under BC-II category for the subject History
and Civics secured 242 marks whereas the petitioner secured
232 marks. Thus, even if the candidature of the petitioner is
treated under BC-II category, he is not entitled to be selected
for appointment as Trained Graduate Teacher in the said
subject.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the last
selected candidate under BC-II category for subject 'History &
Civics' has in fact secured 228 marks and in support of the said
contention he has annexed the chart of subject-wise marks
obtained by the last selected candidate(s) under different
categories. The said chart appears to be the merit list of
Deoghar district prepared before passing the orders by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyajit Kumar
(Supra.) and the aforesaid contempt petition. Learned
counsel puts reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble supreme
Court rendered in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill &
Another Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi &
Others, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, and submits that
the reason of any decision cannot be supplemented by way of
a counter affidavit.
13. This Court is of the view that the said judgment is not
applicable to the case of the petitioner, as learned counsel for
the respondent-JSSC has not tried to supplement the reason
for rejection, rather he has stated the development subsequent
to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Satyajit Kumar (Supra.) and in the aforesaid contempt
petition.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition
being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Sanjay/AFR
