Jharkhand High Court
Secretary vs Lalan Bhaiya on 16 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:12450-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.175 of 2020
------
Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Commission, Chaibagan, Namkom, P.O.
and P.S.-Namkom, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
.... .... Respondent No.2/Appellant
Versus
1. Lalan Bhaiya, Aged-40 years, son of Sri Dhivendra Chandra
Bhaiya, Resident of-Seikhpura, P.O.-Pattajoriya, P.S.-Karmatand,
District-Jamtara. .... .... Petitioner/Respondent No.1
2. The State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara, P.O. and P.S. and District-
Jamtara, Jharkhand
4. District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara, P.O. and P.S.-
Jamtara, District-Jamtara.
5. District Education Officer, Jamtara, P.O, P.S & District-Jamtara.
.... .... Respondents/Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Ruchi Mukhi, AC to AAG-IA
For the Pvt. Resp. : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate
Mr. Ashish Choudhary, Advocate
Mr. Amartya Choubey, Advocate
Mr. Arpan Majesh Ekka, Advocate
------
C.A.V. on 16.04.2025 Pronounced on 25.04.2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer
The instant intra-court appeal preferred by the Jharkhand
Staff Selection Commission under Clause-10 of Letters Patent,
is directed against the order dated 07.11.2019 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.536 of 2019,
whereby and whereunder, the commission has been
commanded to consider the case of the writ petitioner,
2025:JHHC:12450-DB
respondent for selection to the post of Graduate Trained
Teacher in terms of advertisement no.21/2016.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the
writ petition, required to be enumerated, which read as under:
3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that in the year 2016,
an advertisement was published by the Jharkhand Staff
Selection Commission for appointment of Graduate Trained
Teachers vide Advertisement No.21/2016. The writ petitioner
having requisite qualification for the same, applied for the post
of Assistant Teacher. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement
in History & Political Science subject, the writ petitioner had
successfully completed his course in the year 2007 and has
been awarded Degree of Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) - Major in
History in 2nd Class with 53.58% marks. Further, the writ
petitioner pursued his Bachelor of Education from Jodhpur
National University and has been declared successful in the
examination held in the year 2012 in 1st Class.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the writ
petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Teacher and
appeared in the written examination and after being declared
successful in the written examination, he was called for
verification of his certificates from 18.09.2018 to 01.10.2018,
2025:JHHC:12450-DB
which the writ petitioner appeared along with his certificates for
verification. After verification, a final list was prepared by the
Commission, but surprisingly name of the writ petitioner was
not included and the reason assigned for non-inclusion of the
name of the writ petitioner was that he did not fulfill the
requisite qualification as stated in Column 4(k) of the
advertisement, meaning thereby, the writ petitioner was not a
Graduate in Political Science subject. The writ petitioner, being
aggrieved with the said order, has approached to this Court by
filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.536 of 2019.
5. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner
having requisite qualification for the same, applied for the post
of Assistant Teacher. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement
in History & Political Science subject, the writ petitioner had
successfully completed his course in the year 2007 and has
been awarded Degree of Bachelor of Arts - Major in History and
also in Political Science as part of his FHS1 (Foundation Course
in Humanities and Social Science). Further, the writ petitioner
pursued his Bachelor of Education from Jodhpur National
University and has been declared successful in the examination
held in the year 2012 in 1st Class.
6. The writ petitioner applied for the post of Assistant
Teacher and appeared in the written examination and after
2025:JHHC:12450-DB
being declared successful, was called for verification of his
certificates. After verification, a final list was prepared by the
Commission, but surprisingly name of the writ petitioner was
not included and the reason assigned for non-inclusion of the
name of the writ petitioner was that he did not fulfill the
requisite qualification as stated in Column 4(k) of the
advertisement
7. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that his candidature
has not been considered, even though, he is fulfilling all the
criteria as stipulated in the advertisement in question. The writ
petitioner, in the aforesaid backdrop, has approached to this
Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.536 of 2019.
8. The learned Single Judge, has called upon the Jharkhand
Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred as
"Commission"), wherein, the claim of the writ petitioner,
(hereinafter referred to as 'respondent') has seriously been
disputed on the ground of non-availability of requisite
educational qualification. It was contended therein that the
respondent is a candidate for consideration of his candidature
in the subject History/Social Science and the requirement for
consideration of the candidature is that a candidate must have
History and Political Science together in Graduate Level but in
one subject, 45 per cent marks must be there.
2025:JHHC:12450-DB
9. The ground has been taken that the respondent is only
having graduation in History, hence, he has not been considered
to be eligible having no educational qualification as per the
advertisement.
10. Learned Single Judge, however, has discarded the
aforesaid plea on the ground that the writ petitioner since has
studied Political Science as Foundational Course in Humanities
and Social Science (FHS1) and hence, he has been considered to
be fulfilling requisite qualification for appointment and
accordingly, command has been issued upon the Commission to
consider the candidature of the respondent-writ petitioner.
11. The Commission, being aggrieved with the said direction,
has preferred the instant appeal.
Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-JSSC
12. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the appellant-
JSSC has taken the following grounds in assailing the
impugned order that:-
(i) The respondent-writ petitioner is not fulfilling the
educational qualification, since, as per the advertisement, a
candidate must have passed graduation in History and
Political Science together and out of both the subjects, in
one subject, minimum 45 per cent marks along with B.Ed
Degree from recognized teacher training institution or
2025:JHHC:12450-DB
equivalent.
(ii) It has been submitted that History and Political
Science must be a subject in the graduation level. The
respondent-writ petitioner has not studied Political Science
in the graduation level and merely on the ground that he
has studied Political Science as part of Foundational
Course in Humanities and Social Science (FHS1), hence, he
is claiming eligibility as per the condition stipulated in the
advertisement which has been considered to be not
available but the learned Single Judge has not appreciated
the aforesaid fact of availability of the condition in the
advertisement, hence, the impugned order directing the
Commission to consider the candidature of the respondent-
writ petitioner, is absolutely improper and if the
candidature of the respondent-writ petitioner will be taken
into consideration, the same will be said to be contrary to
the condition stipulated in the advertisement.
(iii) The Commission has also given an opportunity by
issuing notice to the respondent-writ petitioner to satisfy
regarding availability of the educational qualification of
graduation having passed in History and Political Science
but the said notice has not been responded and thereafter,
the candidature of the present respondent-writ petitioner,
2025:JHHC:12450-DB
has been rejected. It is only thereafter, through e-mail, a
communication has been made apprising the Commission
of passing the Political Science as Foundational Course in
Humanities and Social Science (FHS1).
(iv) The ground, therefore, has been taken that the
candidature since has been rejected which ought to have
been challenged by the respondent-writ petitioner but
having not done so. Further, the Political Science as a
subject in the graduation level is required in terms of the
condition stipulated in the advertisement and merely
because, the writ petitioner has studied Political Science as
Foundational Course in Humanities and Social Science
(FHS1), the same cannot make the writ petitioner,
respondent eligible in terms of the condition of
advertisement.
(v) Learned counsel has further submitted that there
cannot be any consideration of a candidate contrary to the
condition stipulated in the advertisement, otherwise, the
same will amount to relaxation, which is not admissible.
(vi) Learned counsel has further submitted that identical
issue, however, with respect to the subject History had
been taken into consideration by this Court, wherein, the
claim of the candidate has been rejected which attained its
2025:JHHC:12450-DB
finality by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
13. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has
submitted that it is therefore a fit case to interfere with the
impugned order.
Arguments of the learned counsel for the Pvt. Respondent
14. Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-writ petitioner has defended the impugned order by
taking the following grounds: -
(i) Learned counsel while defending the
impugned order has submitted that it is incorrect
on the part of the Commission to take the ground
that he is having no subject in graduation level
said to be there in the subject Political Science,
since, as per the availability of course in IGNOU, a
distance education course, Political Science is not
being thought by way of independent subject,
rather, as a foundational subject under FHS1.
(ii) The writ petitioner-respondent is having with
the said course in the graduation level and hence,
rejecting the candidature of the writ petitioner
respondent cannot be said to be proper. The
aforesaid fact has been taken into consideration by
the learned Single Judge and based upon the said
2025:JHHC:12450-DB
consideration, if the direction has been issued by
the learned Single Judge, the same cannot be said
to suffer from an error.
(iii) The ground has been taken that the learned
Single Judge has considered that no post was
advertised for appointment of Assistant Teacher in
History and Political Science, rather, the post was
advertised for the post of graduate trained teacher
in the subject History and Civics and as such, the
requirement to have the Political Science in the
graduation level, has rightly not been considered to
be acceptable.
(iv) Learned Single Judge, has also taken into
consideration the issue of equivalence and has
come to the conclusion that the degree as Political
Science as a part of FHS1 and hence, if on
consideration of the aforesaid, if the learned Single
Judge has come to the conclusion that the
respondent-writ petitioner is fulfilling the requisite
qualification for appointment, cannot be faulted
with.
15. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has
submitted that the impugned order therefore needs no
2025:JHHC:12450-DB
interference.
Analysis
16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
gone across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in
the impugned order.
17. This Court, before entering into the legality and propriety
of the impugned judgment, needs to refer herein the certain
factual aspect which is relevant for better appreciation of the
issue involved in the present case.
(i) It is the case that in the year 2016, an advertisement
was published by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission
for appointment of Graduate Trained Teachers vide
Advertisement No.21/2016. The writ petitioner having requisite
qualification for the same, applied for the post of Assistant
Teacher. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement in History &
Political Science subject, the writ petitioner had successfully
completed his course in the year 2007 and has been awarded
Degree of Bachelor of Arts - Major in History in 2nd Class with
53.58% marks. Further, the writ petitioner pursued his
Bachelor of Education from Jodhpur National University and
has been declared successful in the examination held in the
year 2012 in 1st Class.
(ii) Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the writ
2025:JHHC:12450-DB
petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Teacher and
appointed in the written examination and after being declared
successful, was called for verification of his certificates from
18.09.2018 to 01.10.2018, which the respondent appeared
along with his certificates for verification. After verification, a
final list was prepared by the Commission, but surprisingly
name of the writ petitioner was not included and the reason
assigned for non-inclusion of the name of the writ petitioner
was that he did not fulfill the requisite qualification as stated in
Column 4(k) of the advertisement.
18. The respondent is a candidate for consideration of his
candidature for Teacher in History and Social Science in terms
of advertisement no.21/2016. The requirement for the aforesaid
subject, as has been enumerated in the advertisement is that
such candidates who are willing to apply for the post of History
and Social Science Teacher, is required to have subject, i.e.,
History and Political Science together at the graduation level,
out of two subjects, in one subject, 45 per cent minimum
marks is to be obtained, for ready reference, the relevant part of
the advertisement is being referred as under:-
4. इतिहास/नागरिक वेिन बैंड
पी.बी. III-रु. इतिहास एवं िाजनीति
शास्त्र 9300-34800 ग्रेड वेिन- रू. शास्त्र तवषय ं के साथ
4600 स्नािक तकन्तु द न ं
तवषय ं में से तकसी एक
तवषय में 45 प्रतिशि
अंक प्राप्त ह िथा
2025:JHHC:12450-DB
मान्यिा प्राप्त प्रतशक्षण
संस्थान से बी०एड०
अथवा िाष्ट्रीय अध्यापक
तशक्षा परिषद द्वािा
बी०एड० के समकक्ष
घ तषि तडग्री।
अनुसूतिि जाति िथा
अनुसूतिि जनजाति के
अभ्यतथिय ं के तिए
इतिहास एवं िाजनीति
शास्त्र तवषय ं के त्ताथ
स्नािक तकन्तु द न ं
तवषय ं में से तकसी एक
तवषय में 40 प्रतिशि
अंक प्राप्त ह िथा
मान्यिा प्राप्त प्रतशक्षण
संस्थान से बी०एड०
अथवा िाष्ट्रीय अध्यापक
तशक्षा परिषद द्वािा
बी०एड० के समकक्ष
घ तषि तडग्री।
19. The respondent, writ petitioner has made an application in
terms of aforesaid advertisement which has been brought on
record in the paper book by way of Annexure-3, wherefrom, it is
evident that the respondent has shown to be graduate in
History from the Indira Gandhi National Open University,
(IGNOU) Delhi.
20. It is, thus, evident that there is no reference of Political
Science said to be at graduate level being furnished in the said
application.
21. The certificate has also been appended as Annexure-4,
wherein, Bachelor of Arts certificate has been given in Major in
History. The marks-sheet has also been appended, wherein, it
2025:JHHC:12450-DB
has been referred that the respondent is having degree of
Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) with Major in History.
22. The appellant-JSSC, on scrutiny of his application form
and after finding that he is having no Political Science subject
in the graduation level, has called upon the respondent by
making a communication on 28.11.2018 asking the respondent
to reply in that regard.
23. The respondent has not responded to the same and as
such, vide decision dated 05.12.2018, his candidature has been
rejected due to non-availability of subject Political Science at
the graduation level.
24. The respondent, thereafter, on 20.12.2018 through e-mail
has apprised the Commission that he is having Political Science
as a Foundational Course.
25. It needs to refer herein that the last date of submission of
application form was 15.03.2017. The document pertaining to
Political Science at the graduation level, for the first time has
been sent by the respondent on 20.12.2018, meaning thereby,
the application which has been submitted by the respondent-
writ petitioner was incomplete due to non-reference of the
subject Political Science at the graduation level.
26. The specific condition has been stipulated in the
advertisement that the application is required to be submitted
2025:JHHC:12450-DB
strictly in terms of the condition stipulated therein.
27. It is, thus, admitted fact herein that the respondent-writ
petitioner was having no educational qualification as per the
condition stipulated in the advertisement having no Political
Science subject at the graduation level, in one of the subjects,
45 per cent minimum marks must be there.
28. The respondent has tried to make out a case that he was
having Political Science in the Foundational Course at the
graduation level and as such, his candidature ought to have
been considered.
29. But, we are dealing with the issue of recruitment and it is
the bounded duty of the applicant to furnish the application
form as per the terms and conditions of advertisement. Herein,
the terms and conditions as required, are to be shown by the
applicant of fulfilling the condition as contained therein.
30. Herein, as per the condition stipulated, a candidate is to
furnish the detail of subject at graduation level, i.e., History
and Political Science, but, it is evident from the application
form, reference of only History subject has been given and there
is no reference of Political Science, therefore, this Court is of the
view that on that count only, the application to be rejected,
since the application will be said to be not in terms of the
advertisement.
2025:JHHC:12450-DB
31. So far as the consideration of the case of the respondent
that he is having Political Science as a Foundational Course
from IGNOU is concerned, the issue has already been decided
by this Court vide order dated 11th September, 2023 in the case
of Rini Kumari Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (L.P.A.
No.464 of 2022) wherein, the issue was that what would mean
the subject History, whether, the part of History or the History
as a whole. This Court has decided the issue that when the
word "history" is there then the same means the History as a
whole not part of it, either the Medieval or Ancient or the
Modern History.
32. Such finding has been given on the backdrop of the fact
that the advertisement had been issued to appoint teacher and
it is expected for the teacher of the Graduate Trained level to
have the expertise in the subject. The relevant paragraph of the
said judgment is being referred as under:-
"47. The similar issue fell for consideration
with respect to the History to be taken as a
whole or a part of the History subject to be
treated to be educational eligibility criteria.
The same has been decided by the Coordinate
Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.693
of 2019, wherein, by taking into consideration
the condition stipulated in the advertisement,
it has been decided that the History means
'History as a whole and not a part of the
2025:JHHC:12450-DB
History'. The relevant paragraphs of the said
judgment reads as under:-
"20. Examining body while rejecting the
candidature of the candidates has constituted an
expert committee in order to clarify the issue,
comprising of Chairman, Jharkhand Academic
Council; Regional Director, KDS; R.D.D.E, South
Chhotanagpur; Secretary, Jharkhand Academic
Council; Deputy Director, Secondary Education;
Additional Secretary, Secondary Education; DEO,
Ranchi and Senior Advocate of the High Court,
who after making various correspondences with
the various Universities in the State of Jharkhand
came to the conclusion that Ancient History,
Medieval and Modern History are the branches of
the subject History and candidates having degree
in any of the branches only, not the subject
History in its entirety, cannot be made eligible for
selection in terms of the advertisement.
25. In view of such proposition of law, as has
been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors Vs. Kamini
Devi (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court by
accepting the opinion of the expert committee has
opined that candidate would be called graduate in
the subject if he/she has Honours in the subject at
graduate level, therefore, the finding of the
learned Single Judge by holding the eligibility of
such candidate to be considered for selection in
the History subject would be considered of such
candidate, who are having graduation in History
subject in its entirety."
48. It needs to be referred herein that the aforesaid
judgment passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of
this Court has been affirmed by the Hon‟ble Apex
Court by dismissing the appeal being Civil Appeal
No.2217/2218 of 2022, [(2022) Insc 426]. The relevant
paragraphs of the said judgment are being referred as
under:-
"6.1. We have gone through the degrees/
certificates in the case of the respective writ
petitioners. It appears that the respective writ
2025:JHHC:12450-DB
petitioners have obtained the Postgraduate
degrees/ Bachelor degrees, as the case may
be, in one of the branches of History, namely,
Indian Ancient History, Indian Ancient History
and Culture, Medieval / Modern History,
Indian Ancient History, Culture and
Archaeology. In our view, obtaining the degree
in one of the branches of History cannot be
said to be obtaining the degree in History as a
whole. As a History teacher, he/she has to
teach in all the subjects of History, namely,
Ancient History, Indian Ancient History and
Culture, Medieval / Modern History, Indian
Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology etc.
Therefore, having studied and obtaining the
degree in only one branch of History cannot
be said to be having a degree in History
subject as a whole, which was the
requirement. All the relevant aspects have
been considered and gone into in detail by the
learned Single Judge meticulously.
6.7. As observed hereinabove in the online
applications, it was stated by the respective
petitioners that they are having the
Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History and
only at the time of verification of the
documents, when the respective certificates
were produced, at that time only, the
authorities came to know that the respective
writ petitioners have the degrees in one
branch of History and not in History as a
whole and therefore the show-cause notices
were issued so that the respective petitioners
can clarify and satisfy that they are having
the requisite qualification of
Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History and
after giving them the opportunity, the decision
has been taken and that too after obtaining
the Expert Committee's opinion."
33. The judgment has been carried to the Hon'ble Apex Court
being Civil Appeal No.2217/2218 of 2022. The Hon'ble Apex
Court has declined to interfere with the order passed by this
2025:JHHC:12450-DB
Court by dismissing the said SLP.
34. This Court, after having discussed the aforesaid facts
along with the legal issues and after adverting to the finding
recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order,
from which, it has been found by this Court that the learned
Single Judge has interpreted the advertisement contrary to the
condition and spirit as contained therein.
35. The learned Single Judge has made observation that no
post was advertised for appointment of Assistant Teacher in
History and Political Science, rather, the post was advertised for
appointment on the post of graduate trained teacher in the
subject History and Civics. But while, coming to such
observation, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate
the part of the educational qualification as contained in 3rd
column of advertisement making requirement therein that a
candidate if willing to participate in the selection of teacher in
the History and Social Science subjects, such students must be
graduate in History and Political Science together.
36. The condition since has been stipulated in the
advertisement which is under the exclusive domain of the State
and as such, it is not available for the writ court in exercise of
power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to interpret by reading down it.
2025:JHHC:12450-DB
37. Learned Single Judge has also considered the issue on the
basis of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Thahira P. Vrs. Administrator, Union Territory of
Lakshadweep and Ors., reported in (2018) 6 SCC 446.
38. We have considered the aforesaid judgment and found
therefrom that the factual aspect of the said judgment is on the
issue of equivalence and on consideration of the aforesaid
issue, the Hon'ble Apex Court has concluded that the degree in
Malayalam and Sociology was equivalent to a degree in
Sociology awarded by the University.
39. So far as the consideration of the aforesaid judgment is
concerned, we are of the considered view that the said
judgment cannot be said to be applicable universally, rather, it
is to be tested on the basis of surrounding facts.
40. Herein, it is not the case of the respondent-writ petitioner
that the subject Political Science as Foundation Course is
equivalent to the main subject of Political Science at the
graduation level. Further, if that be so, then, it was the
bounden duty of the respondent to bring it to the notice of the
Commission by disclosing the same in the application.
41. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the applicability
of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Thahira P. (supra) cannot be said to be proper.
2025:JHHC:12450-DB
42. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussion, is of the
view that the learned Single Judge without appreciating the
aforesaid factual as well as legal issue, has quashed and set
aside the order dated 19.01.2019 with a consequential direction
to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on
the post of Assistant Teacher, which according to our
considered view, suffers from an error.
43. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.11.2019 as has
been passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.536 of
2019, is hereby quashed and set aside.
44. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed.
45. Pending Interlocutory application(s), if any, stands
allowed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I agree
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated: 25th April, 2025
Rohit/-A.F.R.
