[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Bubai Pahari vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 29 January, 2026
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
(2026:JHHC:2403)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S). No. 146 of 2024
Bubai Pahari, w/o Shri Putul Kumar Singh, aged about 40 years,
resident of Rani Bag, Behind Shanti Cinema Hall, P.O. & P.S. -
Ramgarh (829122), Town & District - Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, School Education and
Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, having office at
Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, Town & District -
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. The Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission having office
at Chai Bagan, Kalinagar, Namkom, P.O. & P.S. - Namkom, Town
& District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission having office at Chai Bagan, Kalinagar, Namkom, P.O.
& P.S. - Namkom, Town & District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Piyush Kumar Roy, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate
---
04/29th January 2026
1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. The petitioner claims appointment as a Graduate Trained Teacher
and he is aggrieved by the action of the respondent by which his
candidature has been rejected.
3. It is case of the petitioner that the petitioner has one subject in
graduation as English, thus, he should be treated to be qualified as
per the advertisement and be treated to be graduate in
English subject.
4. Prescribing essential qualification for appointment falls within the
exclusive domain of the employer. The Court exercising
(2026:JHHC:2403)
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot decide
what is best for the employer and interpret the condition of the
advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same. Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Public Service
Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362 : at
Paragraph No. 9 has held as under:-
9. The essential qualifications for appointment to a
post are for the employer to decide. The employer
may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications,
including any grant of preference. It is the employer
who is best suited to decide the requirements a
candidate must possess according to the needs of the
employer and the nature of work. The court cannot
lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it
delve into the issue with regard to desirable
qualifications being on a par with the essential
eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the
advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall
outside the domain of judicial review. If the language
of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the court
cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an
ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any
rules or law the matter has to go back to the
appointing authority after appropriate orders, to
proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the
court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of
the appointing authority to decide what is best for the
employer and interpret the conditions of the
advertisement contrary to the plain language of the
same.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner had applied for employment as Graduate
Trained Teacher in English language. It is the admitted case of the
parties that the rule and the advertisement provides that a person
should be graduate having 45% marks in the subject which the
petitioner is applying for. Thus, having one subsidiary subject as
English, when the main subject of the petitioner is Computer
Science, cannot make the petitioner a graduate in English
language. Thus, the respondents have correctly rejected the
candidature of the petitioner as she is not a graduate in the subject
she had applied for.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Manoj Kumar
Mahto, Shankar Kalmani and several others were appoint in a
(2026:JHHC:2403)
different subjects though their graduation was not in the same
subject in which they applied.
7. It is well settled that there cannot be any equality in illegality. If
any illegality has been committed, this Court cannot pass any order
which will continue such illegality. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal,
(2010) 2 SCC 422 : has held as under:-
25. Even assuming that the similarly placed persons were
ordered to be absorbed, the same if done erroneously cannot
become the foundation for perpetuating further illegality. If
an appointment is made illegally or irregularly, the same
cannot be the basis of further appointment. An erroneous
decision cannot be permitted to perpetuate further error to
the detriment of the general welfare of the public or a
considerable section. This has been the consistent approach
of this Court. However, we intend to refer to a latest decision
of this Court on this point in State of Bihar v. Upendra
Narayan Singh [(2009) 5 SCC 65 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 1019] ,
the relevant portion of which is extracted hereinbelow: (SCC
p. 102, para 67)
"67. By now it is settled that the guarantee of equality before
law enshrined in Article 14 is a positive concept and it cannot
be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an
illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any
individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has
been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the
jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or
multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing
wrong order...."
[A reference in this regard may also be made to the earlier
decisions of this Court. See also (1) Faridabad CT Scan
Centre v. D.G. Health Services [(1997) 7 SCC 752] ; (2) South
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. [(2003) 8 SCC 648] ;
and (3) Maharaj Krishan Bhatt v. State of J&K [(2008) 9 SCC
24 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 783] .
8. Thus, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
also the fact that this petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility
criteria, this writ petition, is dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Aditi
Dated: - 29th January 2026
Uploaded on:- 04.02.2026
