Jharkhand High Court
Saurav Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 January, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 6955 of 2023
------
Saurav Kumar ..Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy
Development, Govt. of of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi.
4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi.
5. The Principal, Tathagat Teachers' Training College, Jorapipal, Kalyanpur,
Dhanbad. .. Respondent(s)
-----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : M/s Ankitesh Kumar Jha & K.K. Singh, Advocates
For the State : Mr. Zaid Imam, AC to SC-VII
For JAC : M/s Richa Sanchita and Pinky Shaw, Advocates.
.........
3/18.01.2024: Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs;
(I) For a direction upon the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to
verify the accuracy of the petitioner's date of birth, as
reflected in the submitted documents and Examination
Form and to declare the result of the petitioner for the
Primary Teachers' Training Examination, 2021.
(ii) For a direction upon the respondents to constitute an
Enquiry Committee to comprehensively investigate the
circumstances leading to the petitioner's exclusion from
the examination result, including a meticulous review of
the admission process, document verification protocols
and communication breakdowns, with the aim of
preventing future instances of academic injustice and to
recommend and implement corrective measures in
adherence to the principles of natural justice.
. (iii) For a further direction upon the respondents to
provide fair compensation to the petitioner for the loss
suffered due to the mistakes and unfair actions of
respondents.
3. So far as prayer No. (I) is concerned, the said prayer has wrongly
been constructed, as there is no dispute in respect of date of birth of the
petitioner. In all the records, including the matriculation records as in other
records the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 4.8.2001, which
is undisputed.
4. The only grievance of the petitioner is that since he was allowed to
complete the course of D.El. Ed. from Tathagat Teachers' Training College,
Jorapipal, Kalyanpur, Dhanbad, affiliated by Jharkhand Academic Council (JAC)
and recognized by NCTE, his result should have been declared by the JAC. He
submits that all the credentials of the petitioner including the date of birth was
within the knowledge of respondent-College and JAC and inspite of that the
petitioner who admittedly has not completed 18 years of age was allowed to
pursue the said course and appear in the examination. When the petitioner was
allowed to appear in the examination, his result should have been declared,
ignoring that his age was less than 18 years.
5. Counsel for the respondent- JAC submits that admittedly the
petitioner was allowed to sit in the examination, but later on, it was detected that
he did not attain the age of 18 years, which is the minimum age criteria to obtain
the aforesaid diploma degree. Since the petitioner was two months short of
attaining the age of 18 years, his result was not declared.
6. The fact that the the petitioner was two months short in attaining his
age of 18 years is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the minimum age
criteria is 18 years.
7. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 166 of 2021
(Radha Govind Primary Teachers' Training College, Ramgarh Vs. State of
Jharkhand and Ors.) and its analogous cases has held that the minimum age
for entering the course is 18 years as on 1st July. It is necessary to quote
paragraph 20 and 21 of the said judgment, which reads as under;
" 20. This Court, after going through the impugned order
has found from the discussion made therein about the
aforesaid argument wherein the learned Single Judge after
perusing the stand taken by the State in the counter affidavit
that as per CBSE norms and also as per the State
Government norms, minimum age for entering in Class 1 is 5
years, completed on 31st March of the year and thereby the
student will be completing 10+2 at the age of 17 years or more
as on 31st March and for entering into the course involved in
this case, the required age is 18 years as on 1st of July, has
held that the classification on the basis of age in the instant
case is a reasonable classification as the minimum age
prescribed is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and further
fixation of minimum age is essentially a matter of policy of the
State and the NCTE having not fixed any minimum age for
admission to Diploma in Elementary education, the State of
Jharkhand has acted within its powers under entry 25 List III of
the Constitution of India to fix the minimum age for admission
in Diploma in Elementary education.
21. This Court, on the basis of finding recorded by learned
Single Judge holding the decision not to be an arbitrary, is of
the view that such finding cannot be said to suffer from an
error merely because the aforesaid age is non-suitable for a
section of students. Further, the State Government, since has
come out with the aforesaid provision, merely on saying the
aforesaid provision to be arbitrary, cannot be said to be an
acceptable argument raised on behalf of petitioners, reason
being that the students, as per the petitioners, will have to wait
for a year or two cannot be a ground to hold the statutory
provision to be unreasonable or arbitrary. The meaning of
arbitrariness, as per the provision of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India can be said to be available while
formulating the statute by way of policy decision if aforesaid
policy decision is in the teeth of any statutory provision or not
consistent with the constitutional provision. But, merely
because some of the students has got admission, contrary to
the impugned provision, as per the prayer made in the writ
petitions and for regularizing their admission since the
students have taken admission they were less than 18 years
of age the policy decision of the State Government, cannot be
said to be arbitrary.
According to considered view of this Court if the students
have taken admission contrary to the provision as contained
under Clause 6 of the resolution dated 20.05.2004 even
knowing the fact very well that their admissions are in the
teeth of the statutory provision as contained under Clause 6 of
the impugned provision and took admission even in course of
existence of the said statutory provision and after taking
admission, they are now seeking declaration from this Court to
hold the statutory provision to be arbitrary, only for the purpose
of regularizing their admissions, the same cannot be said to be
permissible in law."
The aforesaid order passed in LPA No. 166 of 2021 and its analogous
case, was tested before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.
42867 of 2023 and SLP (Civil) Diary No. 1724 of 2023 but the said S.L.Ps. were
dismissed.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner did not attain the age of 18 years, thus his
result was not declared though he was allowed to appear in examination. Merely
appearing in the examination will not be vested right of the petitioner to get a
result declared. The fundamental illegality cannot be said to have been cured,
merely by allowing the petitioner to appear in the examination. Thus, I find no
illegality committed by the respondents, in not declaring the result of the
petitioner, even if the petitioner was allowed to sit in examination.
9. Thus, I find no merit in this writ petition, the same is dismissed.
Anu/-CP2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
