Jharkhand High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 28 February, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 143 of 2024
1. Nirmal Pahan, aged about 35 years, son of Shri Hari Pahan,
resident of Village- Hisri, P.O.-Baraudi, P.S.-Thakurganw, District-
Ranchi.
2. Ibrar Ahmad, aged about 36 years, son of Md. Akhlaque, resident
of Village & P.O-Kabra Khurd, P.S.-Haidarnagar, District- Palamu.
3. Avinash Prasad, aged about 35 years, son of Maha Prasad Mahato,
resident of Palash Bagan, Neamatpur, P.O-Sitarampur, P.S.-Kulti,
District-West Bardhaman (W.B.).
4. Hemant Singh Munda, aged about 40 years, son of Raiya Singh
Munda, resident of Village-Banta, P.O.-Banta Hazam, P.S.-Silli, District-
Ranchi.
5. Dharmendra Kumar Sharma, aged about 38 years, son of Late
Gautam Sharma, resident of Village-Beltu, P.O.-Kandaber, P.S.-Keredari,
District-Hazaribagh.
6. Saurabh Kumar, aged about 34 years, son of Purshotam Tripathi,
resident of Village-Maranpur, Hanuman Nagar, P.O.- Chandchaura, P.S.-
Vishnupad, District- Gaya (Bihar).
7. Farhan Quasmi @ Farhan Quasim, aged about 35 years, daughter
of Md. Quasim Ali and wife of Md. Murshid Ansari, resident of village-
Khutwadhab, P.O.-Matrukha, P.S.-Giridih Muff, District- Giridih.
8. Santoh Kumar Pandey, aged about 39 years, son of Shrikant
Pandey resident of Village & P.O.-Tetrawan, P.O.-Manpur, District-
Nalanda (Bihar).
9. Satya Pal, aged about 37 years, son of Late Shiv Prasad Pal,
resident of SA. 9/14, Ghurahoopur-Saranath, P.O. & P.S.-Saranath,
District- Varanasi (U.P.).
10. Pratibha Nishad, aged about 32 years, daughter of Lal Chand
Nishad, resident of Village- Chauki, P.O. & P.S.- Sirsa, District-
Prayagraj (U.P.).
11. Keshav Chandra Jha, aged about 47 years, son of Vishwambhar
Jha, resident of Village & P.O.- Pali Mohan, P.S.-Khajauli, District-
Madhubani (Bihar).
12. Suko Kachhap, aged about 43 years, son of Late Jatru Kachhap,
resident of Jaria Pepar Toli, P.O. & P.S- Bero, District- Ranchi.
13. Bhagmaniya Kumari, aged about 43 years, daughter of Late Birsa
Oraon and wife of Ghameshwar Oraon, resident of Village- Nantilo, P.O-
Lawagain, P.S.-Kuru, District-Lohardaga.
14. Pooja Chaturvedi, aged about 33 years, daughter of Suresh Chandra
Chaturvedi, resident of Varunapuri Colony, Lane No.12, Gate No.5,
Phulwariya Cant, P.O. & P.S.-Phulwariya Cant, District-Varanasi (U.P.).
-1 of 19- L.P.A. No. 143 of 2024 & analogous cases
15. Mamta Kumari, aged about 40 years, daughter of Baliram Sahu and
wife of Vijay Sahu, resident of Village- Sakrawli, P.O. & P.S.-Sisai,
District-Gumla.
16. Sarfaraj Nawaz, aged about 42 years, son of Abul Hasan, resident
of Village-Konhara Khurd, R.O.-Jhurjhuri, P.S.-Barkatha, District-
Hazaribagh.
17. Buland Akhtar Rijwi, aged about 40 years, son of Abdul Aziz
Siddiki, resident of Village- Kuju Basti, P.O.-Kuju, P.S.-Mandu, District-
Ramgarh.
18. Anup Kumar Toppo, aged about 43 years, son of Noel Toppo,
resident of Purana Lowadih, P.O. & P.S.-Namkum, District- Ranchi.
...... Writ Petitioners/Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary/Principal Secretary,
School Education and Literacy Department, having Office at Project
Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town and District- Ranchi.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy
Department, Government of Jharkhand, having Office at Project
Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town and District- Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary,
having Office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, Namkum, P.O. & P.S.-
Namkum, Town and District- Ranchi.
... Respondents/ Respondents
4. Rajesh Sen, son of Kartik Sen, resident of Village & P.O.-Napara,
P.S.-Puncha, District- Purulia (W.B.)
.... Writ Petitioner/ Proforma Respondent
With
L.P.A. No.181 of 2024
Alka Kumari, aged about 35 years, Daughter of Gorakhnath Tiwary, wife
of Atul Kumar Shukla, Resident of village Bhougu, P.O. Khamdih, P.S.
Medininagar, District Palamau, Jharkhand, at present Resident of at C/o
Atul Kumar Shukla, 6/171, Choodi Gali, Obra, P.O. & P.S. - Obra,
District - Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh.
...... Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary/Principal Secretary,
School Education and Literacy Department, having its office at MDI
Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. -Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, School and Literacy
Department, Government of Jharkhand having office at Secondary
Education Directorate, MDI Building, Dhurwa, P.O. + P.S.-Dhurwa,
District - Ranchi.
-2 of 19- L.P.A. No. 143 of 2024 & analogous cases
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary,
having office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, Namkum, P.O. + P.S. Namkum,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... Respondents/ Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 182 of 2024
1. Anil Kujur, aged about 49 years, son of Late Johan Kujur, resident
of Village- Chetma, P.O.-Akshi, P.S.-Mahuadanr, District- Latehar.
2. Pranab Kumar Patra, aged about 42 years, son of Late Arun Kumar
Patra, resident of Village & P.O.-Nemaipur, P.S.- Simlapal, District-
Bankura (W.B.).
3. Diwakar Prasad Tiwary, aged about 42 years, son of Sri
Vindhyawasini Prasad Tiwari, resident of Village-Khiri, P.O.-Ramgarh,
P.S.-Koraon, District- Prayagraj (U.P.)
... ...... Writ Petitioners/Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary/Principal Secretary,
School Education and Literacy Department, having office at MDI
Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. -Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, School and Literacy
Department, Government of Jharkhand having office at Secondary
Education Directorate, MDI Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa,
Town and District - Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary,
having office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, Namkum, P.O. & P.S.
Namkum, Town and District Ranchi.
.... ... Respondents/ Respondents
With
L.P.A. No.193 of 2024
Jha Pooja Mahadeo, aged about 34 years, wife of Pawan Kumar Jha,
resident of Village- New Barganda, M. Ward No.10, P.O.- Giridih, P.S.-
Giridih (T), District- Giridih (Jharkhand).
...... Appellant/Writ Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary/Principal Secretary,
School, Education and Literacy Department, having its office at M.D.I.
Building Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. -Dhurwa, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand).
2. The Director, Secondary Education, School, Education and
Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at M.D.I.
Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand).
3. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary,
having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O. & P.S. Namkum,
District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
.... Respondents/Respondents
-3 of 19- L.P.A. No. 143 of 2024 & analogous cases
With
L.P.A. No. 203 of 2024
1. Minakshi Kumari, aged about 42 years, wife of Binda Prasad,
Resident of N.No.150A, old A.G.Colony, Kadru, Opposite Nath Hospital,
PO-Doranda, PS-Argora, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Aneeta Kumari, aged about 34 years, D/o Shri Prabhu Narayan
Pal, Resident of village- Jogawa, P.O. & P.S.- Domari, District-Mirzapur,
U.P.
3. Santosh Kumar Gupta, aged about 48 years, Son of Sri Ramjee
Prasad Gupta, Resident of Duplex No.39, Depavilla, Bhuvneshwari
Green Estate, near Radhika Garden, PO-Luwabasa, P.S.- Govindpur, East
Singhbhum, Jharkhand.
4. Sushma Bhuinya, aged about 39 years, D/o late Rajesh Pahan,
resident of village Naygom toil, Simdega, P.O & P.S.- Simdega, District-
Simdega, Jharkhand.
...... Appellants/Writ Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary/Principal Secretary,
School, Education and Literacy Department, having its office at M.D.I.
Building Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. -Dhurwa, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, School, Education and
Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at M.D.I.
Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary,
having its office at Kali Nagar, Chaay Bagan Namkum, P.O. & P.S.
Namkum, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
.... ... Respondents/ Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 230 of 2024
Bisnupada Sahoo, aged about 34 years, son of Chittaranjan Sahoo,
resident of Kotpura, P.O.- Ganasarisha, P.S.- Keshiary, District- Paschim
Mednipur, West Bengal. ...... Appellant/ Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy
Department, Government of Jharkhand, At-Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-
Dhurwa, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy
Department, Government of Jharkhand, At-Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-
Dhurwa, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary,
Having its office at Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand. .... ... Respondents/ Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 231 of 2024
-4 of 19- L.P.A. No. 143 of 2024 & analogous cases
Vedveer Singh Panwar, aged about 37 years son of Uday Veer Singh,
resident of House No. L.I.G. 245, Avas Vikas-2, Bulandshahar, P.O. &
P.S. Bulandshahar, District- Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh
.... Writ Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, having its
office at H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. The Principal Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi having its
office at H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
4. Director, Directorate of Secondary Education, having its office at
H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
5. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, represented through its
Secretary, having his office at Kalinagar, Chaay Bagan, P.O. & P.S.
Namkum, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834010.
6. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having his office at Kalinagar, Chaay Bagan, P.O. & P.S.
Namkum, Ranchi, Jharkhand 834010
.... ... Respondents/ Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 232 of 2024
1. Nirmal Biswas, aged about 34 years, son of Nikhil Biswas, resident
of Plot No. 219 K B M, Chakdaha, Nadia, P.O. & P.S. Chakdaha Nadia,
District Nadia, West Bengal.
2. Asit Biswas, aged about 36 years son of Ashoke Biswas, resident
of Ghurni Gharami Para, 2nd Lane, Krishnanagar, Ghurni Nadia, P.O. &
P.S. Ghurni Nadia, District Nadia, West Bengal
3. Amit Kumar Mendal (co-appellant) aged about 33 years, son of
Akshay Kumar Mondal, resident of Ghurni Bakul, Talapara (Godown),
P.O. & P.S. Ghurni, District- Nadia, West Bengal.
.... Writ Petitioners/Appellants
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, having its
office at H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. The Principal Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi having its
office at H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
4. Director, Directorate of Secondary Education, having its office at
H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
5. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, represented through its
Secretary, having his office at Kalinagar, Chaay Bagan, P.O. & P.S.
Namkum, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834010.
-5 of 19- L.P.A. No. 143 of 2024 & analogous cases
6. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having his office at Kalinagar, Chaay Bagan, P.O. & P.S.
Namkum, Ranchi, Jharkhand 834010
.... ... Respondents/ Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 233 of 2024
1. Sharda Mahanandi, aged about 36 years daughter of Yogendra
Baraik, resident of Road No. 1, Ratu Road, Indrapuri, Hehal, P.O. & P.S.
Hehal, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Aparna Singh, aged about 36 years, wife of Rajeev Kumar Singh,
resident of House No. 64A, Krishnapuri Colony, Namkum Bazar,
Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, Ranchi, Jharkhand
3. Kumari Anju Verma, aged about 30 years, daughter of Gulab
Chandra Verma, resident of H.No. 154, Jamuiee Mathla, P.O. & P.S.
Ballia, District Ballia, Uttar Pradesh.
4. Pooja Kumari, aged about 33 years, daughter of Shambhunath
Rana, resident of Sijhuwa, P.O. & P.S. Bariyath, District Hazaribagh,
Jharkhand.
...... Writ Petitioners/Appellants
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, having its
office at H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. The Principal Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi having its
office at H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
4. Director, Directorate of Secondary Education, having its office at
H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
5. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, represented through its
Secretary, having his office at Kalinagar, Chaay Bagan, P.O. & P.S.
Namkum, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834010.
6. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having his office at Kalinagar, Chaay Bagan, P.O. & P.S.
Namkum, Ranchi, Jharkhand 834010
.... ... Respondents/ Respondents
7. Kumar Sambhawam, aged about 34 years, son of Rajendra Pathak,
resident of 50 West Tola, Neyazipur, P.O. & P.S. Niazipur, District
Buxar, Bihar.
8. Akanksha Swaroop, aged about 33, daughter of Kuldip Kumar
Gupta, resident of Village Palkot Road, Gumla, P.O. & P.S. Gumla,
District, Gumla, Jharkhand.
.... ... Petitioner No. 4 & 5/Proforma Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 253 of 2024
-6 of 19- L.P.A. No. 143 of 2024 & analogous cases
Ajeet Kumar Singh, aged about 45 years, son of Sri Ramnet Singh,
resident of Village-Hemja, P.O.-Karimandih, P.S.- Haidarnagar, District-
Palamu.
...... Writ Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary/Principal Secretary,
School Education and Literacy Department, having office at MDI
Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. -Dhurwa, Town and District - Ranchi.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy
Department, having office at MDI Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-
Dhurwa, Town and District - Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary,
having office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, Namkum, P.O. & P.S.
Namkum, Town and District Ranchi.
.... ... Respondents/ Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 405 of 2024
Lipika Gupta, aged about 31 years, W/o- Sashi Kumar, R/o- Bank
Colony, Kokar, P.O.- Kokar, P.S.- GPO Ranchi, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand
...... ...... Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary/Principal Secretary,
School Education and Literacy Department having its office at MDI
Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. -Dhurwa, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand).
2. The Director, School Education and Literacy Department, having
its office at MDI Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District -
Ranchi (Jharkhand).
3. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary,
having office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, Namkum, P.O. & P.S.
Namkum, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
.... ... Respondents/ Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 432 of 2024
Jyoti Singh, aged about 32 years, daughter of Dayanath Singh, resident of
Hajauli (Dad ke pura), P.O. & P.S.- Hajauli, Dist.- Balia (Uttar Pradesh).
...... Appellant/Writ Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary/Principal Secretary,
School, Education and Literacy Department, having its office at M.D.I.
Building Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. -Dhurwa, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at M.D.I. Building,
Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District - Ranchi, (Jharkhand).
-7 of 19- L.P.A. No. 143 of 2024 & analogous cases
3. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary,
having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O. & P.S. Namkum,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
.... ... Respondents/Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellants: M/s. Manoj Tandon, Neha Bhardwaj, Saurabh
Shekhar, Shubham Mishra, Ashutosh Anand
No. 2, Harsh Chandra, Amritansh Vats, P.A.S.
Pati, Rohan Kashyap, Akash Deep, Advocates
For the Resp.-State: M/s Gaurav Raj (AC to AAG-II), J. F. Toppo
(GA-V), Neil Abhijit Toppo (AC to GA-V),
Md. Shahabuddin (SC-VII), Suraj Prakash
(AC to SC-VII), Manish Kumar (Sr. SC-II),
Ashwini Bhushan (AC to Sr. S.C.-II), Rohit,
(AC to AAG-I), Aditya Kumar (AC to Sr. SC-
I), Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG.-III), Rakesh
Ranjan (AC to GA-I)
For the Resp.-JSSC: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, A.G,
M/s. Sanjoy Piprawall, Rakesh Ranjan, Prince
Kumar, Jay Prakash, Tejo Mistri, Pravin Kumar
Pandey, Amit Kumar, Richa Sanchita, Pinky
Shaw, Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Sharon Toppo,
Advocates
Reserved on: 10.02.2025 Pronounced on: 28 . 2 .2025
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral)
1. Since common issue is raised in all these LPAs, they are being
disposed of by this common judgment. For reference we shall refer to the
facts in W.P.(S). No. 3436 of 2023.
2. The appellants were all issued Admit Cards and they had appeared
for the Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Examination -
2016 held on various dates between 29.10.2017 and 2.12.2017 pursuant to
Advertisement No. 21/2016 published by the Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission and had all been successful in the said examination.
-8 of 19- L.P.A. No. 143 of 2024 & analogous cases
3. Results were published on the basis of district wise merit list, but
the same was challenged before this Court in several writ petitions i.e.,
W.P.(C).No.1387 of 2017 and other cases (titled Soni Kumari and Ors
v. State of Jharkhand and Ors).
4. A Full Bench of this Court vide judgment dt. 21.9.2020 reported in
(2020) 4 JBCJ 207 (FB) (HC) held that reserving posts by the State for
those who are residents of particular districts of the State of Jharkhand
was unconstitutional.
5. Thereafter this Full Bench judgment was challenged before the
Supreme Court in Satyajit Kumar and Ors v. State of Jharkhand &
Others. The Supreme Court decided the said case by a judgment reported
in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 954 as well as orders passed in Contempt
Petition (C) No.612 /2022 arising out of Civil Appeal No.4044 of 2022
(Soni Kumari and others v. K. Ravi Kumar & Others) and other
Contempt applications.
6. Pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court further results were
declared by the Commission subsequently between 30.09.2022 and
11.05.2023 on the basis of State wise merit list and they were then
uploaded only on the website of the Commission.
The case of the appellants
7. The grievance of the appellants in the Writ Petitions filed by them
was that they were not communicated personally and individually to
attend document verification by the said Commission, though they are all
qualified to be appointed to posts of Trained Graduate Teachers in
-9 of 19- L.P.A. No. 143 of 2024 & analogous cases
Government Secondary Schools of the State of Jharkhand in the subjects
for which they had applied.
8. Appellants contend that individual call letters were not sent to
them, that the dates on which they should attend the document
verification were not published in any newspaper, that no email or short
message service (SMS) was also sent to the appellants by the Commission
individually intimating them personally of the fact they were successful
and should produce their documents for verification though details
regarding their phone numbers and emails were already there in the
application form submitted by each individual appellant in the
Commission's custody. However, they admitted that the results were
uploaded on the website of the Commission under the caption "Important
Notice" for programme of document verification. According to them, they
did not appear before the Commission and produce documents for
verification because they did not have knowledge of the dates on which
they had to produce the documents for verification. They therefore sought
a direction in the Writ Petitions to the Commission to consider their cases
for appointment on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in the concerned
subjects and consequently to issue appointment letters to them.
9. They also contend that when the Commission had sent messages to
the appellants to their mobile numbers and email identities to download
the Admit Card and so it also ought to have followed the said procedure
when results were being uploaded on the website of the Commission
declaring the appellants successful for document verification. They
contended that though the dates of document verification in respect of the
-10 of 19- L.P.A. No. 143 of 2024 & analogous cases
appellants had been fixed by the Commission, the appellants were not
aware of such dates and so could not attend on the relevant date of
document verification.
10. They claimed that only in April/May, 2023 and more particularly
on or after 17th May, 2023 when some of the candidates were handed over
appointment letters by the Chief Minister of the State of Jharkhand, and
this was widely published in newspapers, they came to know about they
being successful and also being invited for document verification.
11. They contended that they made representations to 1st and 3rd
respondent but no action was taken thereon.
12. According to the appellants, it is the duty cast upon the
Commission to send individual call letters through any mode permissible
under the law to the appellants but this has not been done; merely
uploading the results on the website of the Commission would not
amount to sufficient information to all the appellants; and they could not
appear on the dates for document verification for the reason that they did
not get the information of the same properly on time. They claimed that
their fundamental rights under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution had
been violated at the hands of the Commission and the action of the
respondent Commission is not sustainable in law.
The stand of the Commission
13. In the counter affidavit filed by the Commission reliance is placed
on Clause 16(4)(ग)(viii) of Annexure-1 to the writ petition which is the
advertisement/prospectus issued by the Commission.
-11 of 19- L.P.A. No. 143 of 2024 & analogous cases
It is contended that in the said Clause it is clearly mentioned that all
information regarding the examination will be provided on the website of
the Commission.
It is contended by the 3rd respondent that after the examination was
conducted on various dates in the year 2017, it had published the list of
shortlisted candidates for verification of their testimonials and also made
recommendation for their appointment in 2019 in Scheduled and Non
Scheduled Districts.
This came to be challenged in W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 Soni
Kumari and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others1 and the said writ
petition was allowed on 21.09.2020 and appointments made in the
Scheduled Districts were quashed.
It is also stated that this judgment of the High Court was challenged
in the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 12490 of 2020 and the Supreme
Court disposed of the same with the title Satyajit Kumar and others Vs
State of Jharkhand and others (supra) on 02.08.2022 agreeing with the
view of the High Court primarily, but the Supreme Court modified the
same in certain respects and directed the State Government to revise the
merit list based on already published cut-off obtained by the last selected
candidates in each TGT subject against the respective categories with
respect to the entire State while directing that the respective candidates
belonging to the Non Scheduled Area and Scheduled Area (Districts)
shall be adjusted accordingly on the basis of the individual merits of the
candidates keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
1 (2020) 4 JBCJ 207 (FB) (HC)
-12 of 19- L.P.A. No. 143 of 2024 & analogous cases
case and considering the fact that there are already vacant post of
Teachers in the State both in the Scheduled and Non-Scheduled Areas.
Thereafter, in a Contempt Petition (C) No. 612 of 2022 and other
analogous contempt petitions, further directions were issued on
02.12.2022 by the Supreme Court directing the State Government to
prepare a merit list of those candidates who actually were appointed both
in the Scheduled and Non Scheduled Area and directing that whenever a
candidate in the Non Scheduled Area is found to be more meritorious
than the last candidate in the Scheduled Area of which he had given
option, then that candidate in the Non Scheduled Area be adjusted in the
concerned Scheduled Area as per his merit, and the last candidate in the
Scheduled Area would have to reshuffled and adjusted in another district
among those who are already appointed.
The Supreme Court also directed that the original writ petitioners
who approached the High Court also should get their merit list prepared
by the State Government and it should appoint and/or adjust them in the
Non Scheduled or Scheduled District as per their merit.
It clarified that except those who did not approach the High Court
benefit of its order should be given.
14. After passing of orders in the proceedings by the Supreme Court
on 02.08.2022, 02.12.2022 and 15.12.2022, the Commission started the
process to revise the merit list and published a list of shortlisted
candidates between 27.09.2022 and 11.05.2023 in different subjects and
invited verification of the testimonials on respective dates.
-13 of 19- L.P.A. No. 143 of 2024 & analogous cases
15. It is stated that the appellants were also shortlisted for verification
of their testimonials along with other candidates and notice to the said
effect was also given to them through the website of the Commission. It
is stated that shortlisted candidates were also informed that if they failed
to appear before the Commission for their document verification on
11.10.2022, 12.10.2022 and 13.10.2022 and 14.10.2022, they can also
appear before the Commission on 20.10.2022 for verification of their
testimonials; and further opportunities were provided to them if they
could not appear for verification of their testimonials on the earlier dates.
16. It also claimed that it issued notice on 25.01.2023 requesting the
candidates to appear for verification of their testimonials from 09.02.2023
to 14.02.2023 and again gave another notice on 16.03.2023 requesting
them to appear for verification on 21.03.2023. Later, another notice
dt. 03.04.2023 was also issued asking the candidates to appear for
verification on 12.04.2023.
17. It is therefore contended that all shortlisted candidates including the
appellants were provided sufficient opportunities for their appearance for
verification of their testimonials, and since they did not avail the said
opportunity, appointment letters were not issued to them and their
candidature were not considered.
18. It is contended that all the appellants were aware of the ongoing
selection process, that they were also aware that sending personal
information regarding the examination was not the requirement of the
advertisement in view of Clause 16(4)(ग)(viii) of the advertisement, and
-14 of 19- L.P.A. No. 143 of 2024 & analogous cases
they cannot blame the Commission for their fault in not appearing before
the Commission for verification of their testimonials.
19. It is pleaded that in view of the terms and conditions of the
advertisement, publication of notice in newspaper or sending the message
on email to each individual candidate was not required, and that the
selection process was conducted strictly in terms of the advertisement.
The judgment of the learned single Judge
20. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment dt. 22.01.2024
accepted the contentions of the Commission and dismissed the writ
petitions.
21. The learned Single Judge held that advertisement No. 21/2016
issued by the Commission for conduct of the examination for making
appointments on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Government
Secondary Schools contained Clause 16(4)(ग)(viii) of the advertisement
which specifically provided that all information relating to the
examination would be uploaded on the website of the Commission; the
Commission was therefore, bound to upload the information regarding
the examination on the website; and it followed the same and had even
uploaded information for document verification on its website.
22. He held that all candidates are expected to be aware of the terms
and conditions stipulated in the advertisement, that they were also bound
by the conditions of the advertisement, and they cannot claim deviation
from those conditions on the ground that it was not feasible.
23. He held that since it was specifically stipulated in the
advertisement that all communications would be made through official
-15 of 19- L.P.A. No. 143 of 2024 & analogous cases
website of the Commission, the candidates were duty bound to check the
website at regular intervals so as to get information relating to the said
examination. He noted that each and every notice for document
verification published on the website of the Commission right from
27.09.2022, and held that candidates should see the website of the
Commission at regular intervals and their claim that they had no
knowledge of the publication of the revised result cannot be believed.
24. He also held that at least three opportunities were given to the
appellants to get their documents verified, and some were given more
than three opportunities also, but they did not appear for document
verification.
25. Since the mode of communication of information stipulated in their
advertisement was dully followed by the Commission in case of the
appellants, they do not deserve indulgence on the ground that some of the
candidates were given personal information about the document
verification through messages such as SMS/emails and newspaper
publication.
26. He also held that on a mere ground that personal information for
downloading Admit Cards were given the appellants through message on
mobile phones/emails, no legal right is created in their favour to compel
the Commission to provide any subsequent information personally, and in
absence of any legal right no mandamus can be issued under Article 226
of the Constitution of India on the basis of sympathy.
27. The learned Single Judge then relied on the judgment of a Bench of
this Court in Basanti Kerketta Vs. State of Jharkhand and others
-16 of 19- L.P.A. No. 143 of 2024 & analogous cases
W.P.(C) No. 1522 of 2019 where the petitioner had raised a plea that she
lived in remote area which had no internet facility and so she could not
appear for document verification on account of lack of knowledge of the
notice of the document verification. He held that the Bench in the said
case took the view that a condition inserted in the notice inviting
application was binding upon the candidates once they chose to
participate in the process and that the said view was also reiterated in
Anjana Kumari Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others, W.P.(S) No.
6204 of 2018.
28. The learned Single Judge has also held that sympathy and
compassion stay at a distance when careless approach is taken by a
candidate. He also rejected the plea of the appellants about denial of
opportunity before cancelling their candidature on the ground that a
notice for document verification itself indicated that if a candidate could
not appear for document verification on the prescribed dates, their
candidature would be treated automatically cancelled. He also held that if
any indulgence is shown to the appellants, then it will open a pandora box
and the vacancies would never be finally filled up.
29. Challenging the same, these Letters Patent Appeals are filed.
The consideration by the Court
30. Heard learned counsel for the respective appellants.
31. The counsel for the appellants reiterated the contentions raised by
them before the learned Single Judge and pleaded that the appellants
ought to have been individually and personally informed about the
-17 of 19- L.P.A. No. 143 of 2024 & analogous cases
various dates for verification of their testimonials notwithstanding the fact
that the advertisement did not require such a process to be followed.
32. When pressed by the Court to indicate the basis for claiming
personal information individually about the dates of document
verification, none of the counsel were able to point out any provision of
law or precedent conferring such a right on each individual appellant.
Unless they establish that they have such a right on the basis of some
provision of law or precedent, they are not entitled to any relief.
33. We agree with the view of the learned Single Judge in the
impugned judgment that the petitioners have to trace their rights to get
personal information about the document verification dates to a statute or
rule or to a precedent. In absence of any legal right being established by
the appellants for getting the information about the dates of document
verification personally, relief cannot be granted to them in a writ
jurisdiction.
34. Their plea is that because the process of selection which
commenced in 2017 continued for a long period upto even 2023, the
appellants have a legitimate expectation of personal communication, and
they cannot be expected to keep on verifying the website of the
Commission to find out information about the examination from time to
time. Therefore, their cases ought to be considered sympathetically and
an opportunity should be given to each of them afresh for document
verification.
35. Admittedly, Clause 16(4)(ग)(viii) of the advertisement specifically
provided for furnishing of information regarding the examination only
-18 of 19- L.P.A. No. 143 of 2024 & analogous cases
through the website of the Commission. The appellants were fully aware
of the same and they are also bound by the same. They cannot seek any
relaxation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement and cannot
find fault with the Commission for adhering to the said norms. When
opportunity for document verification was given at least three times to
each of the appellants as pointed out by the learned Single Judge, and it
was not availed by them because of their own negligence in not checking
the website of the Commission from time to time, they are not entitled to
any relief on the basis of sympathy.
36. Merely because some of the other successful candidates were
informed about the dates of document verification through an
advertisement or otherwise through email, parity cannot be sought as
righty held by the learned Single Judge. Only a person who has
enforceable right can claim parity with similarly situated persons but not
otherwise.
37. We therefore, do not find any merit in the Letters Patent Appeals
and they are accordingly dismissed.
38. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
N.A.F.R.
VK
-19 of 19- L.P.A. No. 143 of 2024 & analogous cases
