Skip to content


Sanjeev Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided On
AppellantSanjeev Kumar
RespondentThe State of Jharkhand and Ors
Excerpt:
.....remained   unfilled.   no   other   objection,   except,   what   has   been  noticed hereinabove, has been raised by the respondents.  10. considering   the   aforesaid   aspects   of   the   matter,   the  respondent­jharkhand   academic   council   is   directed   to  recommend   the   name   of   the   petitioner   for   appointment   as   a pg trained teacher in a +2 high school within two weeks and on  receiving the recommendation from jharkhand academic council,  6 the secretary and the director of the department concerned shall  ensure that appointment letter is issued to the petitioner within  four weeks, thereafter.  11. the  .....
Judgment:

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI     L.P.A. No. 649 of 2015 Sanjeev Kumar, son of Sri Kameshwar Lal Das, resident of Ward  No. 11, Chhata Talab Road, Asnabad, P.O.­Karma at Jhumritilaiya,  P.S.­ Koderma, District­ Koderma, Jharkhand… Appellant         Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2.   The   Secretary,   Human   Resources   Development   Department,  Govt.   of   Jharkhand,  M.D.I.  Bhawan,  P.O.­  Dhurwa,  Ranchi,  P.S.­ Jagarnathpur, District­Ranchi 3.   The   Director,   Secondary   Education,   Human   Resources  Development   Department,   Govt.   of   Jharkhand,   M.D.I.   Bhawan,  P.O.­ Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.S.­Jagarnathpur, District­Ranchi 4. Jharkhand Academic Council through its Chairman, having its  office at Gyandeep Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.­ Namkum, District­Ranchi ... … Respondents  ­­­­­ For the Appellant        : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate    For the Respondent­State  : Mr. Binod Singh, S.C. III For the Respondent­JAC  : Mr. M.S. Anwar, Sr. Advocate    Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, Advocate ­­­­­ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE          HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR   ­­­­­  08/Dated: 5  th  September, 2016     Per Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

Misconstruing   the   appellant­writ   petitioner's  application for appointment to the post of Post­Graduate Trained  Teacher   and   mis­interpreting   order   dated   10.12.2013   passed   in W.P.(S)   No.   94   of   2013,   the   respondent­Jharkhand   Academic  Council has declined to recommend the name of the petitioner for  appointment on the said post.   Accepting the plea taken by the  respondents in the proceeding of W.P.(S) No. 1389 of 2014 that  once  the  petitioner submitted his application in the category of  teachers   employed   in   Government   Secondary   (High)   School   he  cannot   be   considered   under   the   category   of   direct   recruits,   the  learned Writ Court dismissed the writ petition holding that, “any  2 improvement in the claim of the petitioner at this stage would not  only   be   contrary   to   the   requirement   of   the   advertisement   and  prescribed application form which he consciously filled, but also in  teeth of the observation made in his case earlier by the learned  Single Judge”.

2. Reiterating the stand taken in earlier writ proceedings  that   the   petitioner   is   entitled   for   appointment   on   the   post   of Post­Graduate   Trained   Teacher   under   unreserved   category   in  direct recruits quota, the instant Letters Patent Appeal has been  filed.  3. Advertisement   No.   117/2011   was   issued   by   the  Jharkhand   Academic   Council   for   appointment   of   teachers   in +2   High   Schools   district­wise,   category­wise   and   subject­wise.  Advertisement   gives   subject   code,   reserve   category   code   and  divisional codes.  The prescribed proforma for the application also  contained   subject   code,   centre   code,   category   code   and   subject  name.  The petitioner applied for the post of teacher in Economics,  for which total number of vacancy was 230 out of which 115 posts  were   under   unreserved   category.   Before   the   Writ   Court,   the  respondents   referring   to   the   provision   for   appointment   on 50%   seats   by   direct   recruits   and   50%   seats   from   the   Graduate  Trained   Teachers   of   Government   Secondary   (High)   Schools  contended that the petitioner, who was employed in an upgraded  Middle   School   and   had   filled   up   column­12   of   the   application  form   in   affirmative,  cannot  claim  appointment  under   the  direct  recruits quota.  4. In   the   present   proceeding,   on   12.07.2016   the  respondent­Jharkhand Academic Council was directed to furnish  information,   whether   the   appellant­writ   petitioner   has   obtained  marks   more   than   the   cut­off   marks   in   both   the   categories   and  whether the in­service teachers were barred from applying under  general   category.   The   Jharkhand   Academic   Council   has   filed  3 counter­affidavit admitting that the petitioner obtained 202 marks  and he was initially selected under unreserved category however,  during verification and counselling when it was detected that he is  not a teacher in Government Secondary (High) School, he was not  offered   appointment.   The   counter­affidavit   further   reveals   that  under unreserved category for teachers the cut­off marks was 162  and under unreserved category of non­teachers, the cut­off marks  was 196. The respondent­JAC has stated that in­service teachers  were not barred from applying under the direct recruits quota. In  the   counter­affidavit   the   respondent­State   of   Jharkhand   has  merely   reiterated   the   stand   taken   before   the   Writ   Court   and  asserts that the petitioner was not eligible to apply as a teacher  because he was not a teacher of Government Secondary (High)  School.  5. Under   Advertisement   No.   117/2011,   the   requisite  educational qualification for appointment as PG Trained Teacher,  which   a   candidate   must   possess,   was   graduation   degree   in   the  concerned   subject   with   50%   marks   and   B.Ed.   degree   from   a  recognised   training   institute.   The   petitioner   possesses   the  aforesaid  qualifications is not  in  dispute.   None of the columns  under Advertisement No. 117/2011 required a candidate to apply  for appointment under the category of teacher in a Government  Secondary (High) School. Column­12 merely seeks an information  viz,   “Are   you   already   employed   as   Teacher   in   Government  Secondary (High) School in Jharkhand”, to which the petitioner  indicated “yes” but “on deputation”.

6. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the respondent­State of Jharkhand contended that the petitioner has  thus, applied under the category of in­service candidate and since  he, on verification, was found not eligible he has rightly not been  offered   appointment.   Mr.   Sohail   Anwar,   the   learned   Senior  Counsel   appearing   for   the   respondent­JAC   has   also   supported  4 order   dated   29.01.2014   which   was   impugned   by   the   petitioner  before the Writ Court and submitted that in view of order dated  10.12.2013   passed   in   W.P.(S)   No.   94   of   2013   the   claim   of   the  petitioner   was   to   be   examined   in   the   category   of   in­service  candidates in which he had submitted his application.  7. The aforesaid contentions are liable to be rejected. As  noticed above, under Advertisement No. 117/2011 there was no  separate   category   for   in­service   candidates,   that   is,   teachers  employed in Government Secondary (High) School. The category  code under the aforesaid advertisement vide clause­ix prescribes  that candidates should fill “category” such as, General, S.C., S.T.  etc. for which different code numbers were given. No doubt, 50%  of the posts advertised were to be filled up by teachers already  appointed   in   secondary   schools   for   which   a   separate   list   was  required   to   be   prepared,   however,   this   would   not   preclude   a  candidate working in Government Elementary or Primary School  to participate in the selection process and seek appointment as a  teacher   in   +2   High  Schools.   According   to  the   respondents,   the  petitioner did not fulfill requisite criteria as in­service candidate.  In   our   opinion,   in   such   a   situation   his  claim  should   have   been  considered   for   appointment   in   direct   recruits   quota.   The  information furnished by the petitioner also discloses that he was  not   appointed   as   a   PG   Trained   Teacher   in   a   Government  Secondary   (High)   School   rather,   he   was   posted   there   on  deputation.

8. Expression used in column­12 of the application form  is 'employed' and not 'appointed'. Since the petitioner was working  on deputation in a Government School, he was required to furnish  such information. Now, referring to the information furnished by  the petitioner which discloses that he is not a teacher appointed in  Government Secondary (High) School, it was incumbent upon the  respondents   to   consider   his   claim   for   appointment   under  5 unreserved   category   of   direct   recruits   quota.   Vide   order   dated  10.12.2013 in W.P.(S) No. 94 of 2013 the Writ Court directed the  respondent­JAC   to   make   suitable   recommendation   for  appointment of the petitioner, if it is found that he had qualified in  the 'category' in which he had applied. The category under which  the petitioner applied is 'general category' for which category code  11 is given in the advertisement. The information furnished by the  candidates   under   column­12   of   the   application   cannot   be  translated into to create a new category and as if the petitioner's  candidature   can   be   considered   only   as   in­service   candidate.  Provision for appointment on 50% seats by the teachers already  employed   in   Government   Secondary   (High)   Schools   does   not  exclude   an   otherwise   eligible   candidate   to   seek   appointment  under direct recruits quota in his category. The approach of the respondent­Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council as reflected in  order dated 29.01.2014 was erroneous and the learned Writ Court  has also overlooked the aforesaid aspect of the matter.  9. On admitted facts, once it is found that the petitioner  has  obtained  marks more  than cut­off marks for the  candidates  who were recommended for appointment as direct recruits, we are  of   the   opinion   that   the   respondents   must   be   directed   to   offer  appointment to the petitioner as a PG Trained Teacher in +2 High  School. The learned counsel for the petitioner has informed the  Court that all the vacancies advertised have not been filled up and  no further advertisement has been issued for the posts which have  remained   unfilled.   No   other   objection,   except,   what   has   been  noticed hereinabove, has been raised by the respondents.  10. Considering   the   aforesaid   aspects   of   the   matter,   the  respondent­Jharkhand   Academic   Council   is   directed   to  recommend   the   name   of   the   petitioner   for   appointment   as   a PG Trained Teacher in a +2 High School within two weeks and on  receiving the recommendation from Jharkhand Academic Council,  6 the Secretary and the Director of the Department concerned shall  ensure that appointment letter is issued to the petitioner within  four weeks, thereafter.  11. The   impugned   order   dated   21.09.2015   passed   in W.P.(S)   No.   1389   of   2014   is   set­aside   and   consequently,   order  dated 29.01.2014 passed by the Jharkhand Academic Council is  quashed.

12. The Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed.       (Virender Singh, C.J.)        (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Manish


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //