Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1620 (JHR)

Arvind Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2012-11-07

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
Judgment Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been preferred for a direction upon the respondents to issue appointment letters on the post of Primary Trained Teachers in the District of Garhwa and Palamau as the petitioners claimed to have been declared passed by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission for appointment of trained teachers in the Examination of 2002 in view of the advertisement as contained in Annexure 2. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that from the results of the merit list declared in respect of two districts, the name of the petitioners are reflected as per Annexure 2. It is further submitted that the respondents have failed to issue appointment letters to the petitioners despite they having been succeeded in the selection test. Counsel for the petitioners has enclosed the certificate of licentiate in teaching examination of 1998 and 1999 issued by the Director Education, Uttar Pradesh, Annexures 3 and 3/1 to submit that the petitioners have an equivalent degree as required under the advertisement, for which selection exercise was held. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no reason why these petitioners should be denied appointment. Counsel for the petitioners also submits that the Institute in question has been recognized by the N.C.T.E. 4. Counsels for the respondents-State and Jharkhand Public Service Commission have appeared and filed their counter affidavits. It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the counsel for the State that as per advertisement, applications were invited from the candidates, who possessed qualification of matriculation or equivalent examination recognized by the State Government and, secondly, the candidates must have passed the degree of two years teachers' training examination or B. Ed. /Dip-in-B. Ed/Dip-in-Teach recognized by the State of Jharkhand. By relying upon Rule 2(Kha) of Elementary Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2002, it is submitted that “trained” means candidates, who have passed the teachers training/B. Ed. /Dip-in-B. Ed examination from the recognized institute. The candidates, who did not possess such qualification, are not eligible for appointment. It is further submitted that JPSC has published the provisional results and has recommended the names of selected candidates to the Government with a condition that the appointment letters be issued to the selected candidates only after proper verification of their testimonial such as academic/training/district option/caste certificate etc. It is further submitted that JPSC has published the provisional results and has recommended the names of selected candidates to the Government with a condition that the appointment letters be issued to the selected candidates only after proper verification of their testimonial such as academic/training/district option/caste certificate etc. It is further submitted that upon verification of the certificates of the petitioners, they were not found to be holding the requisite qualification of having two years teachers training examination/B. Ed/Dip-in-B. Ed. /Dip-in-Teach recognized by the Government of Jharkhand and by NCTE. Counsel for the respondents, therefore, submits that as per decision of the District Education Committee the claims of the petitioners have been rejected as they have the qualification of licentiate in teaching, which is not recognized by the State of Jharkhand. In these circumstances no appointment can be granted to the petitioners, as they have failed to fulfill the necessary qualification for being appointed as primary teachers. 5. Counsel for the respondent-JPSC has supported the aforesaid stand and also reiterated the relevant Rule of 2002 i.e. Rule 2(Kha), wherein a candidate was required to have the necessary degree in training as recorded hereinabove. In these circumstances, the respondents submits that no writ or direction can be issued to the petitioners as they have not fulfilled the necessary eligibility criteria/ educational qualification for being appointed. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. From Annexure 5, i.e. an order issued by the National Council for Teacher Education under NCTE Act, 1993 it appears that the institute in question, from which the petitioners have obtained the licentiate in teaching certificate has been recognized by NCTE for granting the certificate of licentiate in Teaching and not B. Ed. However, the same order also illustrates that different institutions have been granted recognition for conducting the courses of B. Ed and issuance of certificate thereupon to the successful candidates. The requirement under the relevant advertisement and the Rules of 2002 stipulate that the candidate should have the qualification of two years teachers training and/or B. Ed/Dip-in-B. Ed/Dip-in-Teach. Counsel for the petitioners, however, has not been able to show that the aforesaid certificate of licentiate in teaching has been declared to be equivalent to B. Ed/Dip-in-B. Ed./Dip-in-Teach, which is the mandatory qualification. Therefore, it appears that the petitioners do not possess the required qualification for being appointed. 7. Counsel for the petitioners, however, has not been able to show that the aforesaid certificate of licentiate in teaching has been declared to be equivalent to B. Ed/Dip-in-B. Ed./Dip-in-Teach, which is the mandatory qualification. Therefore, it appears that the petitioners do not possess the required qualification for being appointed. 7. Under these circumstance, the action of the respondents in not offering appointment to the petitioners cannot be found fault with and mere claim that their names appeared in merit list would not entitled them to make a claim for appointment, if they have not fulfilled the minimum eligibility and educational criteria. 8. I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.