Jharkhand High Court

Nirmal Pahan vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 22 January, 2024

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                              1

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                W.P.(S) No. 3436 of 2023

1. Nirmal Pahan
2. Ibrar Ahmad
3. Avinash Prasad
4. Hemant Singh Munda
5. Dharmendra Kumar Sharma
6. Saurabh Kumar
7. Farhan Quasim
8. Santosh Kumar Pandey
9. Satya Pal
10. Pratibha Nishad
11. Keshav Chandra Jha
12. Suko Kachhap
13. Bhagmaniya Kumari
14. Pooja Chaturvedi
15. Mamta Kumari
16. Rajesh Sen
17. Sarfaraj Nawaz
18. Buland Akhtar Rijwi
19. Anup Kumar Toppo                  ...      ...     Petitioners
                               Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary/Principal Secretary,
   School Education and Literacy Department, Ranchi
2. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy
   Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, Ranchi
                                      ...     ...      Respondents
                               With
                   W.P.(S) No. 3532 of 2023

Alka Kumari                           ...      ...     Petitioner
                               Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary/Principal Secretary,
   School Education and Literacy Department, Ranchi
2. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy
   Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, Ranchi
                                       ...    ...      Respondents
                                With
                   W.P.(S) No. 3893 of 2023

Jha Pooja Mahadeo                     ...      ...     Petitioner
                               Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary/Principal Secretary,
   School Education and Literacy Department, Ranchi
2. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy
   Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, Ranchi
                                      ...     ...      Respondents
                                With
                   W.P.(S) No. 4120 of 2023

1. Minakshi Kumari
                               2

2. Aneeta Kumari
3. Santosh Kumar Gupta
4. Sushma Bhuinya                     ...      ...     Petitioners
                               Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary/Principal Secretary,
   School Education and Literacy Department, Ranchi
2. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy
   Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, Ranchi
                                      ...     ...      Respondents
                                With
                   W.P.(S) No. 4195 of 2023

1. Anil Kujur
2. Pranab Kumar Patra
3. Diwakar Prasad Tiwari              ...      ...     Petitioners
                               Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary/Principal Secretary,
   School Education and Literacy Department, Ranchi
2. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy
   Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, Ranchi
                                      ...     ...      Respondents
                                With
                   W.P.(S) No. 6112 of 2023

Bisnupada Sahoo                         ...    ...     Petitioner
                               Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department,
   Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy
   Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, Ranchi
                                          ...      ...     Respondents
 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                              -----

For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Awanish Shekhar, AC to AAG-I Mrs. Sweta Shukla, AC to AAG-II Mrs. Nirupama, AC to Sr. SC-II Mr. Faisal Allam, AC to SC (Mines)-III Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, AC to GA-IV Mr. Suraj Prakash, AC to SC-VII For the Respondent-JSSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Amrita Kumari, Advocate

-----

Order No. 14 Dated: 22.01.2024

The present batch of writ petitions except W.P.(S) No.

6112 of 2023 have been filed for issuance of direction upon the

respondents, in particular Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission

(JSSC) to conduct document verification of the petitioners as they

were declared successful in the Combined Graduate Trained Teacher

Competitive Examination (CGTTCE)-2016 held pursuant to

Advertisement No. 21/2016 published by JSSC, but neither call letters

inviting them for document verification were issued nor any notice for

the same was published in any newspaper due to which they could

not appear on the date fixed for document verification. The writ

petition being W.P.(S) No. 6112 of 2023 has been filed for issuance of

direction upon the respondents to conduct document verification of

the petitioner for appointment on the post of Trained Graduate

Teacher in the subject 'Sanskrit' as after being declared successful in

the said written examination, he was called for document verification

to be held on 31.07.2023, but could not appear due to illness. Further

prayer has been made in all the writ petitions for issuance of direction

upon the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for

appointment on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in the

concerned subjects and consequently, to issue appointment letters to

them.

2. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioners of

respective writ petitions is that the petitioners are graduate in the

concerned subjects securing more than 45% marks and they possess

degree of B.Ed. (Bachelor of Education) or equivalent recognized by

the National Council for Teacher Education and as such, they are

qualified to be appointed on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in

Government Secondary Schools of State of Jharkhand in the subjects

for which they had applied. The JSSC published Advertisement No.

21/2016 in order to conduct Combined Graduate Trained Teacher

Competitive Exam-2016 for making appointment on the post of

Trained Graduate Teacher in Government Secondary Schools of State

of Jharkhand in the concerned subjects and the petitioners being

eligible candidates, applied for appointment on the said post.

3. It is further submitted that the petitioners were issued

Admit Cards and thereafter they appeared in the written test

conducted on various dates between 29.10.2017 to 02.12.2017.

Thereafter, the results were published on the basis of district wise

merit list, however, the same was challenged before this Court by

filing several writ petitions i.e., W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and other

analogous cases (Soni Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand &

Ors.), wherein vide judgment dated 21.09.2020, reported in (2020)

4 JBCJ 207 (FB) (HC)], the Full Bench of this Court held that

reserving the posts by the State for those candidates who were

residents of particular districts of the State of Jharkhand was

unconstitutional. The said judgment rendered by the Full Bench was,

however, challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the

light of the judgment rendered in the case "Satyajit Kumar & Ors.

Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors." reported in (2022) SCC online

SC 954 as well as the orders passed in Contempt Petition (C) No.

612/2020 arising out of Civil Appeal No. 4044 of 2022 (Soni

Kumari & Ors. Vs. K. Ravi Kumar & Ors.) and other contempt

applications, further results were declared by the JSSC on one or

other dates, preparing the same on the basis of state wise merit list,

which were uploaded only on the website of JSSC and neither

individual call letters were sent to the petitioners nor the results were

published in any newspaper.

4. It is also submitted that no information whatsoever either

through e-mail or message (SMS) was ever sent to the petitioners,

though the details of phone numbers and emails were already

mentioned in the application forms of the petitioners submitted

before the JSSC. Though the petitioners were sent message (SMS)/e-

mail to download their respective admit cards, however, they were

not sent any such message (SMS)/e-mail for document verification,

rather the results were uploaded on the website of JSSC declaring the

petitioners successful and calling them for document verification.

5. It is further submitted that in the year 2018, personal

informations were given by the respondent-JSSC to the candidates

through SMS on their respective mobile numbers with respect to the

same selection process. However, in the year 2023, pursuant to the

judgement/orders rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

cases of "Satyajit Kumar" (supra) and "Soni Kumari" (supra),

such procedure was not adopted in the same selection process

pertaining to CGTTCE-2016. On perusal of the important notice dated

23.09.2023 published in daily newspaper namely, 'Prabhat Khabar', it

would be evident that in the same selection process, documents

verification took place after proper notice published in the newspaper,

however, no such notice was published in the newspaper in the case

of the petitioners for the reasons best known to the respondent-JSSC.

6. It is also submitted that on perusal of the press

communique dated 28.07.2021 issued by the Examination Controller,

JSSC, it would appear that several candidates on being declared

successful, were informed about their result through post, however,

many of such successful candidates couldn't appear for document

verification on the assigned date and time and the respondent-JSSC

again provided them opportunity to appear for document verification.

It is therefore, apparent that some candidates who were declared

successful pursuant to the same advertisement, were informed

through registered post but such procedure was not adopted in the

case of petitioners for the reasons best known to the respondent-

JSSC.

7. It is further contended that the publications of results

were done in phase wise manner and for the same subject, different

selection lists were prepared on month-to-month basis. In that

situation, it was not possible for the candidates to keep checking the

website of JSSC on daily basis in order to find their names in the

merit list. The methodology adopted by the JSSC resulted into state

of confusion and chaos as sometimes two merit lists were prepared

on the same day which were published on the website and the

candidates were expected to keep on checking the website regularly.

The respondent-JSSC had chosen an unprecedented manner of

publishing the merit list of the same subject in a series manner i.e., if

a merit list was published in the month of January, it did not mean

that the same was the final selection list for a particular subject,

rather further merit lists were continued to be published month after

month for the same subject. In such a situation, if someone missed

his/her name in any of the merit lists and he/she could not appear for

document verification, his/her candidature was treated to have

ended, which resulted in the candidates of lesser merit occupying the

place in the subsequent lists.

8. It is also argued that many candidates were given three

opportunities for document verification by publishing results on three

occasions and thereafter providing further extensions, but in the case

of some of the petitioners, the result was published only once inter

alia notifying three dates to appear for document verification, failing

which their candidature was to be cancelled.

9. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, as per

Clause-16(4)(kh)(ii) of the advertisement, the JSSC has to give

adequate opportunity to the concerned candidates for presenting

their position before taking decision in the matter of cancelling their

candidature. However, in the present case, admittedly neither any

notice was issued to the petitioners nor any opportunity of hearing

was given to them before ousting their candidature from the purview

of selection. Thus, the JSSC itself has not followed the terms of the

advertisement. Admittedly, the document verification process is still

going on and no prejudice will be caused either to the JSSC or to any

other candidate, if the petitioners are allowed to appear for document

verification. In the present situation, less meritorious candidates will

get appointment at the cost of the petitioners who have scored more

marks than those candidates.

10. It is further submitted that the petitioners came to know

about publication of fresh result only in the month of April/May, 2023

and more particularly on or after 17.05.2023, when some of the

candidates were handed over the appointment letters by Hon'ble the

Chief Minister of the State of Jharkhand and news relating to the

same, was widely published in various newspapers. The petitioners

thereafter submitted their respective representations in the office of

respondent no. 1 as well as in the office of the respondent no. 3,

requesting inter alia to fix further dates for their document

verification, however, the same were not responded. The petitioners

are running from pillar to post as well as making repeated requests to

the respondent no. 3 to fix further dates for their documents

verification, as they have been declared successful, however, the said

authority failed to take any decision on their representations. The

JSSC was duty bound to send the call letters to the petitioners

through any mode permissible under law, which was not done in the

present case. Merely uploading the results on the website of the JSSC

cannot be treated as sufficient information to the petitioners, who are

deprived of appearing before the JSSC for documents verification.

11. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-

JSSC submits that as per the specific terms mentioned under Clause-

16(4)(kh)(viii) of the Advertisement, all information relating to

examination were to be uploaded on the website of the Commission.

The JSSC after receiving online application forms of the candidates

decided to conduct the examination on 29.10.2017, 12.11.2017,

19.11.2017, 25.11.2017, 26.11.2017 and 02.12.2017. Accordingly, the

Admit Cards of the candidates were uploaded on the website of the

JSSC and the candidates were also informed about downloading their

Admit Cards from the website of the JSSC. After conducting the

examination on the scheduled dates, time and place in Computer

Based Test (CBT) mode, the JSSC published the list of shortlisted

candidates for verification of their testimonials and after verification

of the same, recommendation for appointment of the successful

candidates was made in the year 2019 for scheduled and non-

scheduled districts.

12. It is further submitted that as per Notification No. 5938

dated 14.07.2016 issued by the Department of Personnel,

Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand,

only local residents of districts namely; Sahebganj, Dumka, Jamtara,

Latehar, Ranchi, Khunti, Gumla, Lohardaga, Simdega, East

Singhbhum, West Singhbhum and Saraikella-Kharsawan were eligible

for appointment in Group-III and Group-IV posts of the district cadre

in various department of the concerned districts for a period of 10

years from the date of issuance of the said notification. After

commencement of the selection process for appointment of Trained

Graduate Teacher in various subjects pursuant to Advertisement No.

21/2016, notification No. 5938 dated 14.07.2016 issued by the

Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha,

Government of Jharkhand was challenged before this Court by filing

several writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and other

analogous cases ["Soni Kumari" (supra)] and vide judgment dated

21.09.2020 passed in the said cases, the Full Bench of this Court

quashed the appointments made in the scheduled districts which was

subsequently challenged by the appointed candidates of the

scheduled districts before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Civil

Appeal No. 4038 of 2022 and other analogous appeals. The said civil

appeals were finally disposed of vide judgment dated 02.08.2022. In

terms with the judgment rendered in the aforesaid appeals i.e.,

"Satyajit Kumar" (supra) and the orders dated 02.12.2022 &

15.12.2022 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 612/2020

arising out of Civil Appeal No. 4044 of 2022 (Soni Kumari &

Ors. Vs. K. Ravi Kumar & Ors.) and other analogous contempt

petitions, the JSSC started the process to prepare the revised state

wise merit list. Thereafter, it also issued list of the shortlisted

candidates for verification of the testimonials and published the part

result on 17.04.2023 after finalizing the process of documents

verification and also making recommendation for appointment of the

successful candidates on 18.04.2023.

13. It is also submitted that the names of the petitioners

were also shortlisted for verification of their testimonials and the

notices regarding the same were uploaded on the website of the

JSSC. Moreover, sufficient opportunities were given to them to get

their documents verified, however, they failed to appear for

documents verification and as such, their candidature were not

considered. The petitioners after going through the terms and

conditions of the advertisement had participated in the selection

process and they were well aware about the terms and conditions of

the advertisement/prospectus including Clause-16(4)(kh)(viii) of the

same.

14. It is further submitted that publication of notice in the

newspaper and sending information on the email of the candidates

were not mandatory. It is well settled that after publication of the

advertisement, the terms and conditions of the same cannot be

changed and the selection process has to be conducted strictly in

terms therewith.

15. It is also contended that no right accrued in favour of the

selected candidates for appointment on mere inclusion of their names

in the select list. In support of the said contention, learned counsel

for the respondent-JSSC puts reliance on the judgment rendered by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Vishal Ashok Thorat & Ors.

Vs. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate & Ors." reported in (2020) 18

SCC 673.

16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

materials available on record. The petitioners by filing the present

batch of writ petitions have sought direction upon the respondent-

JSSC to grant them one more opportunity for documents verification

and appoint them on the post of Trained Graduate Teachers in the

concerned subjects.

17. A tabular chart containing the details of the petitioners

and the respective dates on which they were called for document

verification is being given for ready reference in the present batch of

writ petitions.




Sl. Name               of Roll No.        Subject       Date of Document
No. Petitioners                                         Verification  and
                                                        further
                                                        opportunities
1.    Nirmal Pahan         11128122815    Hindi         18.10.2022,
                                                        28.10.2022,
                                                        14.02.2023,
                                                        21.03.2023 &
                                                        12.04.2023
2.    Ibrar Ahmad          22123210815    Math &        02.11.2022,
                                          Phy.          09.11.2022,
                                                        10.02.2023,
                                                        21.03.2023 &
                                                        12.04.2023
3.    Avinash Prasad       22117208308    English       02.12.2022,
                                                        09.12.2022,
                                                        13.02.2023,
                                                        21.03.2023 &
                                                        12.04.2023
4.    Hemant         Singh 16141176113    Geography     18.11.2022,
      Munda                                             25.11.2022,
                                                        13.02.2023,
                                                        21.03.2023 &
                                                        12.04.2023
5.    Dharmendra       Kr. 14130143304    Bio & Chem.   03.11.2022,
      Sharma                                            11.11.2022,
                                                        10.02.2023,
                                                        21.03.2023 &
                                                        12.04.2023
6.    Saurabh Kumar        14140148876    Bio & Chem.   04.11.2022,
                                                        11.11.2022,
                                                        10.02.2023,
                                                        21.03.2023 &
                                                        12.04.2023
7.    Farhan Quasmi        27116231231    History &     06.03.2023,


                                          Civics      10.03.2023,
                                                      13.03.2023,
                                                      21.03.2023 &
                                                      12.04.2023
8.    Santosh      Kumar 20117199800      Sanskrit    17.05.2023,
      Pandey                                          19.05.2023     &
                                                      23.05.2023
9.    Satya Pal             26114223237   Phy. Edu.   24.11.2022,
                                                      28.11.2022,
                                                      14.02.2023,
                                                      21.03.2023 &
                                                      12.04.2023
10.   Pratibha Nishad       20115198583   Home Sc.    02.05.2023,
                                                      04.05.2023     &
                                                      08.05.2023
11.    Keshav     Chandra   22114206565   Sanskrit    17.05.2023,
      Jha                                             19.05.2023     &
                                                      23.05.2023
12.   Suko Kachhap          16132172603   Hindi       19.10.2022,
                                                      28.10.2022,
                                                      14.02.2023,
                                                      21.03.2023 &
                                                      12.04.2023
13.   Bhagmaniya            13114132493   Kudukh      28.02.2023,
      Kumari                                          03.03.2023,
                                                      06.03.2023,
                                                      21.03.2023 &
                                                      12.04.2023


14.   Pooja Chaturvedi      19134195535   Phy.Edu.    23.11.2022,
                                                      28.11.2022,
                                                      14.02.2023,
                                                      21.03.2023 &
                                                      12.04.2023
15.   Mamta Kumari          15121160649   Nagpuri     24.11.2022,
                                                      28.11.2022,
                                                      09.02.2023,
                                                      21.03.2023 &
                                                      12.04.2023
16.   Rajesh Sen            23112211600   English     15.05.2023,
                                                      17.05.2023     &
                                                      19.05.2023
17.   Sarfaraj Nawaz        28181267792   History &   14.10.2022,
                                          Civics      20.10.2022,
                                                      14.02.2023,
                                                      21.03.2023 &
                                                      12.04.2023
18.   Buland       Akhtar 22113205736     Economics   06.03.2023,
      Rijwi                                           13.03.2023,
                                                      21.03.2023 &
                                                      12.04.2023
19.   Anup Kr. Toppo        22123210740   Hindi       19.10.2022,


                                                            28.10.2022,
                                                            14.02.2023,
                                                            21.03.2023 &
                                                            12.04.2023


Sl.   Name of petitioners   Subject          Roll No.      Document
No.                                                        Verification
1.    Alka Kumari           Home             24122217855   02.05.2023,
                            Science                        04.05.2023      &
                                                           08.05.2023



Sl.   Name of Petitioner    Subject          Roll No.      Document
No.                                                        Verification
1.    Jha Pooja Mahadeo     English          28130242509   12.06.2023,
                                                           14.06.2023      &
                                                           16.06.2023



Sl.   Name              of Subject           Roll No.      Date            of
No. Petitioners                                            document
                                                           verification
1.    Minakshi Kumari       Economics        25113219354   06.03.2023,
                                                           10.03.2023,
                                                           13.03.2023,
                                                           21.03.2023      &
                                                           12.04.2023
2.    Aneeta Kumari         Sanskrit         20118199977   28.06.2023,
                                                           01.07.2023      &
                                                           03.07.2023
3.    Santosh       Kumar Biology          & 14130143562   03.11.2022,
      Gupta                 Chemistry                      11.11.2022,
                                                           10.02.2023,
                                                           21.03.2023      &
                                                           12.04.2023
4.    Sushma Bhuinya        History        & 28180267076   14.10.2022,
                            Civics                         20.10.2022,
                                                           14.02.2023,
                                                           21.03.2023      &
                                                           12.04.2023




Sl.     Name of Petitioners     Roll No.         Subject          Date            of
No.                                                               document
                                                                  verification
1.      Anil Kujur              27118232104      History & Civics 11.10.2022,
                                                                  20.10.2022,
                                                                  25.01.2023,
                                                                  21.03.2023      &
                                                                  12.04.2023
2.      Pranab Kumar Patra      20116199285      Geography        18.11.2022,
                                                                  25.11.2022,
                                                                  25.01.2023,
                                                                  21.03.2023      &
                                                                  12.04.2023
3.      Diwakar        Prasad 11115114371        Phy. Education   03.03.2023,
        Tiwari                                                    06.03.2023      &
                                                                  10.03.2023


Sl.     Name of petitioner      Subject         Roll No.          Document
No.                                                               Verification
1.      Bishnupada Sahoo        Sanskrit        26117224869       31.07.2023,
                                                                  02.08.2023      &
                                                                  04.08.2023

18. The thrust of argument of learned counsel for the

petitioners is that though the petitioners were given personal

information through messages on mobile phones/e-mails for

downloading their admit cards, the said process was not followed to

call them for documents verification, rather the said information was

merely uploaded on the website of the Commission. It has also been

contended that the petitioners could not appear for documents

verification on the scheduled dates due to lack of information.

Moreover, in the same selection process, some of the candidates

were given personal information to appear for documents verification

through messages on mobile phones/e-mails and in some cases, the

notices for documents verification were also published in the

newspaper, however, in the case of the petitioners, the said process

was not followed and thus in the same selection process, the JSSC

adopted different methods of circulating information about document

verification.

19. The stand of the respondent-JSSC is that the information

with regard to documents verification was uploaded on its official

website as mandated under Clause 16(4)(kh)(viii) of the

advertisement and as such, the petitioners cannot claim that they

were not appropriately informed about the dates fixed for document

verification.

20. Learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC puts reliance on

the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

"Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors." reported in

(2011) 12 SCC 85 wherein it has been held that the selection

process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated

selection procedure and when a particular schedule is mentioned in

an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. It has

further been held that there cannot be any relaxation in the terms

and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is

specifically reserved.

21. Learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC puts further

reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of the "State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Vs. G. Hemalathaa

& Anr." reported in (2020) 19 SCC 430 wherein it has been held

that strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the Instructions

is of paramount importance and the High Court in exercise of power

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot modify/relax the

instructions issued by the Commission.

22. To appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the

parties, I have perused Advertisement No. 21/2016 whereby the JSSC

published advertisement to conduct CGTTCE-2016 for making

appointments on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in

Government Secondary Schools wherein under Clause 16(4)(kh)(viii),

it has been specifically provided that all the information related to the

said examination shall be uploaded on the website of the

Commission. Thus, uploading of any information relating to

examination on the website was the mandatory condition and the

JSSC was bound by the same. Admittedly, the JSSC has followed the

said condition by duly uploading the information for documents

verification in its website. All candidates are supposed to be aware of

the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement and are also

bound by the said conditions. They cannot claim deviation from those

conditions on the ground that the same were not feasible. Since it

was specifically stipulated in the advertisement that all the

communications would be made through official website of JSSC, the

candidates were duty bound to check the website at regular interval

so as to get information relating to the said examination. It was

mentioned in each and every notice for documents verification

published on the website of the Commission right from 27.09.2022

that the candidates should see the website of the Commission on

regular interval. As such, the claim of the petitioners that they had no

knowledge of publication of revised result, is not believable.

23. It would be evident from the above-mentioned chart that

at least three opportunities were given to the petitioners to get their

documents verified. Some of the petitioners were given more than

three opportunities, however, they failed to appear for documents

verification. I am of the view that since the mode of communication

of information stipulated in the advertisement has been duly followed

by the JSSC in the case of the petitioners, they do not deserve

indulgence on the ground that some of the candidates were given

personal information about the documents verification through

messages (SMS)/e-mails and newspaper publication. Moreover, on

mere ground that personal information for downloading admit cards

were given to the petitioners through messages on mobile phones/

e-mails, no legal right is created in their favour to compel the JSSC to

provide any subsequent information through personal mode. It is a

well settled principle of law that in absence of any legal right, no

mandamus can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India on the basis of sympathy.

24. I have perused the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in the case of "Basanti Kerketta Vs. State of

Jharkhand & Ors." [W.P.(C) No. 1522 of 2019] on which much

reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC.

In the said case, the claim of the petitioner was that she lived in

remote area where there was no facility of internet due to which she

could not appear for document verification as the notice for

documents verification could not be communicated to her. The Bench

held that a condition inserted in the notice inviting application was

binding upon the candidates once they chose to participate in the

process. The court further held as under:

"10. ----

So far as the factual aspect involved in this case is concerned, the advertisement wherein each and everything was to be done on the basis of on-line even the admit card was to be issued on-line and the petitioner

with all consciousness has made the application on-line and thereafter the process time was given and as such after failing to appear before the authority for scrutinizing the document, she cannot take the plea at this stage that the communication ought to have been made through post as because once advertisement has been issued specifying the terms and conditions, it is binding upon the parties and once the application has been made in terms thereof, a candidate who has participated in terms of the said advertisement cannot turn around and extent the condition stipulated in the advertisement.

----"

25. I have also perused another judgment of Co-ordinate

Bench rendered in the case of "Anjana Kumari Vs. The State of

Jharkhand & Ors." [W.P.(S) No. 6204 of 2018]. In the said

case, the petitioner was seeking another opportunity for documents

verification on the ground of illness, however, the Bench declined to

entertain the said request of the petitioner of that case by holding

that she had been given ample opportunity to appear for documents

verification.

26. I am in agreement with the view taken by Co-ordinate

Benches of this Court in the cases of "Basanti Kerketta" (supra)

and "Anjana Kumari" (supra). Sympathy and compassion stay at a

distance when careless approach is taken by a candidate. According

to learned counsel for the petitioners, the judgment rendered in the

case of "Basanti Kerketta" (supra) will not apply to the case of the

petitioners since the same was passed prior to the orders passed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Soni Kumari" (supra). I

am not convince with the said argument of learned counsel for the

petitioners since the view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case

of "Basanti Kerketta" (supra) that the parties are bound by the

terms and conditions of the advertisement will still apply to the

petitioners even after passing of the orders in "Soni Kumari"

(supra).

27. The next argument of learned counsel for the petitioners

is that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before

cancelling their candidatures and the said action of the JSSC is in

deviation from Clause 16 (4)(kh)(ii) of the advertisement. I do not

find any substance in the said argument as well since there was no

question of granting opportunity of hearing to the candidates as their

candidatures were cancelled on the ground of their failure to appear

for documents verification. It was stipulated in the notice issued for

documents verification itself that if the candidates do not appear for

documents verification on the prescribed dates, their candidature

would be treated as automatically cancelled.

28. So far the claim of the petitioners that they are more

meritorious than the candidates who are being appointed, this Court

is of the view that the said claim of the petitioners is also not tenable

as the petitioners themselves failed to appear for documents

verification on the scheduled dates.

29. The next limb of argument of learned counsel for the

petitioners is that documents verification process is still continuing

and if the petitioners are allowed to appear for the document

verification, no prejudice will be caused to any other candidates or to

the JSSC. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-

JSSC submits that after verification of the testimonials of the

candidates, JSSC has published the result of the successful

candidates for making appointments on the post of Trained Graduate

Teacher in various subjects on the basis of State wise merit list and

thereafter, recommendation for appointment of the successful

candidates has also been made to the State Government. In support

of the said contention, the JSSC has filed Status Report on

05.01.2024 along with the supplementary counter affidavit and has

stated that in some subjects, the process of appointment has already

been completed and, in some subjects, there are still few posts to be

filled. To counter the said argument of learned counsel for the

respondents, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in

respective writ petitions submit that the status report filed by the

JSSC is provisional in nature which is written on the top of the said

report itself. Moreover, this Court vide order dated 14.09.2023 passed

in W.P.(S) No. 4195 of 2023 has specifically observed that any

appointment pursuant to Advertisement No. 21/2016 shall be subject

to the outcome of the instant writ petition.

30. Since the process of appointment for some subjects have

already been completed, if the petitioners concerning with those

subjects are given indulgence at this stage, then some successful

candidates will go out of the merit list and in such situation, serious

prejudice will be caused to them. If such indulgence is granted to

only those petitioners in whose subject the vacancy is still existing,

the same would amount to creating a class within class which is not

permissible under law.

31. The petitioners have also raised the issue of infringement

of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as according to them few

candidates have been given notices for documents verification

through messages on mobile phones/e-mails or through newspaper

publication, however, in the case of the petitioners, the notice was

published only on the website of the Commission which amounts to

an arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents.

32. In the case of "State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Kameshwar

Prasad Singh & Anr." reported in (2000) 9 SCC 94, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held as under:

30. The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. When any authority is shown to have committed any illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual or group of individuals, others cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on the ground of denial thereof to them.

Similarly wrong judgment passed in favour of one individual does not entitle others to claim similar benefits. In this regard this Court in Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [(1996) 2 SCC 459] held that citizens have assumed wrong notions regarding the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equality before law to all citizens. Benefits extended to some persons in an irregular or illegal manner cannot be claimed by a citizen on the plea of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution by way of writ petition filed in the High Court. The Court observed: (SCC p. 465, para 9) "Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within the equality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Court to enforce such claim of equality before law. If such claims are enforced, it shall amount to directing to continue and perpetuate an illegal procedure or an illegal order for extending similar benefits to others. Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been a discrimination."

Again in Secy., Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain [(1997) 1 SCC 35] this Court considered the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution and reiterated its earlier position regarding the concept of equality holding:

(SCC pp. 51-52, para 28) "Suffice it to hold that the illegal allotment founded upon ultra vires and illegal policy of allotment made to some other persons wrongly, would not form a legal premise to ensure it to the respondent or to repeat or perpetuate such illegal order, nor could it be legalised. In other words, judicial process cannot be abused to perpetuate the illegalities. Thus considered, we hold that the High Court was clearly in error in directing the appellants to allot the land to the respondents."

31. In State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann [(1997) 3 SCC 321] this Court observed: (SCC p. 322,

para 3) "The doctrine of discrimination is founded upon existence of an enforceable right. He was discriminated and denied equality as some similarly situated persons had been given the same relief. Article 14 would apply only when invidious discrimination is meted out to equals and similarly circumstanced without any rational basis or relationship in that behalf. The respondent has no right, whatsoever and cannot be given the relief wrongly given to them, i.e., benefit of withdrawal of resignation. The High Court was wholly wrong in reaching the conclusion that there was invidious discrimination. If we cannot allow a wrong to perpetrate, an employee, after committing misappropriation of money, is dismissed from service and subsequently that order is withdrawn and he is reinstated into the service. Can a similarly circumstanced person claim equality under Section 14 for reinstatement? The answer is obviously 'No'. In a converse case, in the first instance, one may be wrong but the wrong order cannot be the foundation for claiming equality for enforcement of the same order. As stated earlier, his right must be founded upon enforceable right to entitle him to the equality treatment for enforcement thereof. A wrong decision by the Government does not give a right to enforce the wrong order and claim parity or equality. Two wrongs can never make a right."

33. Thus, it is well settled that there is no concept of

negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. If a person has

an enforceable right, he is required to be treated at par with similarly

situated persons, but where no such right is available, he cannot

make the said claim. Since in the present case, the petitioners have

failed to show any legal right that they should have been served

personal notices for documents verification, no relief can be granted

to them by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

34. So far as the claim of the writ petitioner of W.P.(S) No.

6112 of 2023 is concerned, if the petitioner was ill at the time of

documents verification, he should have represented before the

respondent-JSSC at that time itself seeking further time for