Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1105 (JHR)

Tapeshwar Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2013-09-25

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER I.A. No. 6674/13 1. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners for early hearing of the case. Since pleadings are complete and counsel for the rival parties are present, the case is being heard and disposed of. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are entitled for appointment as Assistant Teachers under the advertisement issued in the year 2002 by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Government schools in Jharkhand. The sole issue raised in the instant writ application on behalf of the petitioners, which needs to be addressed, is in relation to their claim that though, they had completed their teachers' training course earlier to the cut-off date of the application i.e. 30th September 2002, but they were denied appointment on the grounds that they had not obtained the relevant certificates for passing the teachers training examination on the date on which appointments were made in the year 2003. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that in similar circumstances, issue had cropped up in the case of similarly situated persons and the matter was decided by learned Full Bench of this Court in the case of Md. Sajjad Ali & others vs. The State of Jharkhand & others in WPS No. 4259/2005 and other analogous cases, reported in 2008(4) JLJR 184 . In identical circumstances, the learned Full Bench of this Court held that if the candidates had obtained teachers training by the cut-off date, they were entitled for appointment to the said posts. Interpretation of Rule 2(Kha) of Jharkhand Primary Teachers' Appointment rules, 2002 were made by the learned Full Bench. In such circumstances, it was held that the word 'obtained' is being used instead of 'trained' in the relevant provisions of Rule 2(Kha). It is however not in dispute that these petitioners have obtained the requisite degree of teachers' training course in the year 2007 i.e. much after the date of appointment under the said advertisement of such selected candidates. 4. Counsel for the respondent State as well as JPSC disputed the submission of the petitioners based upon the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Md. Sajjad Ali & others (Supra) by stating that these petitioners had not passed the teachers' training examination before appointment letters were issued. 4. Counsel for the respondent State as well as JPSC disputed the submission of the petitioners based upon the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Md. Sajjad Ali & others (Supra) by stating that these petitioners had not passed the teachers' training examination before appointment letters were issued. In the said case, such petitioners had passed the teachers' training course before the date of issuance of appointment letters. In such circumstances, they were directed to be appointed on the ground that they had obtained teachers' training qualification by the cut-off date for making application for appointment to such post. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant records including the judgment rendered by the Full Bench in the case of Md. Sajjad Ali & others (Supra) relied upon by the petitioners. Issue is no longer res-integra for this Court. In the instant case, paragraphs 26-28 are relevant for the purpose for deciding the present case which are being quoted here-under. “26. The petitioners thus fulfilled the prescribed eligibility criteria for applying for the post, the JPSC after scrutiny of their application forms filled up by them issued admit cards for the examination for the appointment of teachers. There was no ambiguity at that stage. When the petitioners appeared in the examination and passed the same and were selected for the purpose of appointment and in the meanwhile, also passed B.Ed examination and acquired eligibility for appointment and became trained having obtained and passed B.Ed Course, they were denied appointment on the post. In some cases even appointment letters were issued but they were also not allowed to join the post on the plea that on the date of application, they had no requisite eligibility, though the petitioners possessed requisite qualification and eligibility having obtained teachers training before the date of application for the post. 27. In view of the above discussions, the first point has to be answered in affirmative and in favour of the petitioners. It is held that the petitioners having obtained the Teachers' Training before applying for appearing in the examination for appointment of teachers were eligible for that purpose in view of the clear provision of Rule 4 (Ga) of the said Rules. Point No. II: 28. It is held that the petitioners having obtained the Teachers' Training before applying for appearing in the examination for appointment of teachers were eligible for that purpose in view of the clear provision of Rule 4 (Ga) of the said Rules. Point No. II: 28. While discussing the Point No. 1, it has been seen that though for the purpose of applying for the post, a person who has obtained the training is eligible, yet for the appointment to the post of teacher, according to Rule 2(Kha), he must have trained, i.e. he must have obtained “training and passed” the examination of the course. The petitioners, who had applied for the post had appeared in the examination and passed the training examination before the appointment letters were issued to them. The said position is not disputed by the respondents. However, the only ground taken by the State respondents as well as by the JPSC is that on the date of submission of application, they were not trained and were not eligible for applying the post, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. 29. While deciding the Point No. I, it has been held that on the date of application, the petitioners were eligible for applying for the post. The said objection of the respondents is held to be without any substance. Appointment cannot be denied to the petitioners on that ground. There is thus no impediment to hold that there is no just reason or legal ground to deny the petitioners' appointment after their due selection for the post who possess the requisite qualification and eligibility in accordance with the prescribed Rule. The petitioners having passed B.Ed Training Examination were/are eligible for the appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. This point is also answered in favour of the petitioners” 6. It is apparent that in the said case, learned Full Bench of this Court found that such candidates who have applied for the said post, have appeared in the examination and passed the training examination before the appointment letters were issued to them. This was also not disputed by the respondents. In the said case, as was claimed by the respondent State as well as JPSC, on the date of submission of application, they were not trained and were not eligible for applying for the post. This was also not disputed by the respondents. In the said case, as was claimed by the respondent State as well as JPSC, on the date of submission of application, they were not trained and were not eligible for applying for the post. In such circumstances, by interpreting the Rule 4(Kha) of Jharkhand Primary Teachers' Appointment rules, 2002, learned Full Bench laid down the ratio that the said petitioners were eligible to participate in the examination on the ground that they had obtained Teachers' Training qualification by the cut-off date and results were published before appointment letters were issued. In the present case, it is not in dispute that these petitioners though may have undertaken the teachers' training course earlier than the cut-off date, but their results were published in the year 2007. 7. In such view of the matter, petitioners are not entitled to the benefits of the ratio laid down by the learned Full Bench of this Court in the case of Md. Sajjad Ali & others (Supra). Therefore, no grounds are made out for interference in the present writ application. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. I.A. also stands disposed of. Petition dismissed.