Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1325 (JHR)

Kumari Biplabi v. State of Jharkhand

2013-12-03

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
ORDER By the Court - The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents for her appointment on the post of Primary Teacher. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. Pursuant to an advertisement issued in September, 2002, the petitioner appeared and her name was recommended on 14.11.2003 by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. The petitioner obtained B.Ed degree on 14.11.2004 and since she was not offered appointment, she approached the Office of the District Superintendent of Education on 19.08.2005 when she was informed that, since she was not possessing requisite qualification, she was not offered appointment on the post of Primary Teacher. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on the judgment in “Md. Sajjad Ali Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others”, reported in 2008 (4) JLJR 184 contended that, since at the time when the advertisement was issued, the petitioner was already enrolled however, the result was published on 14.11.2004 and therefore, the petitioner was entitled for appointment on the post of Primary Teacher. He has further submitted that, in the Full Bench Judgment in the case of “Md. Sajjad Ali” (supra), this Court has held that, since the persons appearing in the B.Ed examination were also duly qualified for being appointed on the post of Primary Teacher, the petitioner is also entitled for consideration of her case for appointment on the post of Primary Teacher. 5. As against the above, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand has controverted the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, the learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Public Service Commission has submitted that, though the name of the petitioner was recommended on 14.11.2003 for appointment on the post of Primary Teacher, such recommendation was provisional only and it was open to the State Government to scrutinise the relevant criteria and eligibility of the candidates and take a final decision. 6. On a perusal of the documents on record, I find that in the advertisement, it has been clearly mentioned that the candidates must possess two years' Teacher Training or B.Ed/Dip-in-ed/Dip-in-Teach or C.P.Ed or D.P.P.Ed. From the admitted facts, I find that the last date for submission of the application was 30.09.2002 and the recommendation was made on 14.11.2003 however, the petitioner was granted B.Ed degree on 14.11.2004. From the admitted facts, I find that the last date for submission of the application was 30.09.2002 and the recommendation was made on 14.11.2003 however, the petitioner was granted B.Ed degree on 14.11.2004. In the writ petition, it is not disclosed whether the petitioner had completed the course at the time when the advertisement was issued. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that on the last date of submission of the application or on 14.11.2003 when the names were recommended by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, the petitioner was not possessing the essential educational qualification. In “Md. Sajjad Ali” (supra), this Court has noticed the facts in the said case in paragraph 8.1 which are extracted below: “It has been contended that in the advertisement, the requirement was only completion of B.Ed Training course. All the petitioners had completed their B.Ed. Training Course and they were appearing candidates. They had completed their Training Course in time, but the examination of B.Ed. was belatedly held, which was not their fault. The petitioners had eligibility according to the advertisement, as they had completed B.Ed. Training Course before submission of their applications and they had passed B.Ed. Examination with excellent numbers before the date of their appointment as teachers. The respondents with full consciousness had invited applications from the candidates, who had completed the B.Ed. Course on the date of submission of application form and not only from the persons 'B.Ed. Pass.'” 7. In paragraph 20, the Rule 4 which lays down the eligibility criteria, has been noticed by this Court which is as under: “4. JHARKHAND LOK SEVA AYOG KE DWARA JILABAR CHINHIT RIKTIYON KE ADHAR PAR SAMACHAR PATRON ME VIGYAPAN JARI KAR NIMN AHARTA DHARAK UMMIDWARON SE AVEDAN PATRA AMANTRIT KIYA JAYENGE; (KA) JO BHARAT KA NAGRIK HO. (KHA) JO MATRIK ATHWA USKE SAMKAKASH PARIKASHA UTIRN HO. (GA) JO NIYAM 2 (KHA) ME ULLEKHIT PRASHIKSHAN PRAPT KIYA HO, PARANTU PARISTHITI VISHESH ME APRASHIKSHIT UMMIDWARON KE LIYE BHI ALAG SE PARIKSHA AYOJIT KE JA SAKEGI, TATHA AISE UMMIDWARON KA PRASHIKSHAN PARIKSHA ME UTRIN HONE KE BAD HI, SHIKSHAK KE PADO PAR NIYUKT KIYA JA SAKEGA, AISE APRASHIKSHIT UMMIDWARON KO PRAKSHISHAN KE DAURAN MATRA CHHATRAVRITI DI JAYEG, JO MATRIK APRASHIKSHIT VETANMAN KE PRATHAM PRAKRAM KE BARABAR HOGA. PRASHIKSHAN KE VEYAVASTHA RAJAYA SARKAR DWARA KARAYI JAYEGI. PRASHIKSHAN KE VEYAVASTHA RAJAYA SARKAR DWARA KARAYI JAYEGI. PRASHIKSHAN KE BAD SAFAL UMMIDWARON KI NIYUKTI MATRIK PRASHIKSHIT VETANMAN SE MATRA TIN VARSHO KE AVADHI KE LIYE RAJYA SARKAR DWARA SUBIDHA KE ADHAR PAR KI JA SAKEGI. (GHA) JIS PANCHANG VARSH ME VIGYAPAN NIKALA JAYEGA, US VARSH KE PAHLI JULY KO UMMIDWAR KI AYU SARKAR DWARA NIRDHARIT NYUNTAM EVAM ADHIKTAM AYU SIMA KE ANTARGAT HOGI, KINTU IS NIYAMAVALI KO PRAVRIT HONE KE BAD MATRA PRATHAM NIYUKTI VARSH ME PURV PRASHIKSHIT UMMIDWARON KE LIYE SARKARI SEVA ME PRAVESH KE LIYE NIRDHARIT ADHIKTAM AYU SIMA KI SHART KI RAJYA SARKAR DWARA SHANT KIYA JA SAKEGI.” 8. In paragraph 21, this Court has interpreted the Rule 4 (Ga) to mean that it does not require the applicant to possess the degree of Teachers Training at the time when advertisement was issued. It has been held that the intention of the framers of the Rule was to provide that the passing of the training examination on the date of application was not mandatory requirement. Whereas, in the present case, I find that there is a mandatory requirement of having essential eligibility criteria that is, a degree in two years' Teachers Training or B.Ed etc. when the advertisement was issued. Admittedly, on the last date of submission of application form or on the date when the names were recommended by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission that is, 14.11.2003 the petitioner was not possessing the mandatory educational qualification. 9. In Harpal Kaur Chahal (Smt) v. Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab and another, reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 706, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 2. “It is contended for the appellant that since the appellant had been appointed by the duly constituted Departmental Selection Committee and as on the date of interview since the appellant had the qualification, her selection and appointment cannot be said to be illegal. We find no force in the contention. It is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications. Such of those candidates who possessed of all the qualifications as on that date alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to rules. It is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications. Such of those candidates who possessed of all the qualifications as on that date alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to rules. Since the appellant had not possessed the Physical Training Instructor qualifications as on that date, her illegal consideration by the Board and recommendation for appointment and the appointment made in furtherance thereof are illegal. Therefore, we cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel in that behalf.” 10. I find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.