Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1090 (JHR)

Chandra Kumar Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2014-11-10

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has applied for appointment against one post of teacher in the subject of Philosophy under the Advertisement no. 1/2012 issued by Respondent Netarhat Vidyalaya Samiti, Netarhat, Annexure-2. He faced interview on 5th February, 2013 as per interview letter dated 4th January, 2013 and 15th January, 2013 (Annexure-3) and the results were published on 14th March, 2013, where his name was at serial no. 1 in the merit-list of the candidates, who had applied for the subject of Philosophy vide Annexure-4 series. However, he was not appointed. It is also evident that no appointment on the single post of Philosophy teacher advertised was made by the respondent. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that after having allowed him to participate in the written test and interview, the respondent should not have foreclosed any appointment to the said post as it would be arbitrary. It is further contended that the post advertised could not have been allocated to any other subject during the selection process and further the appointment made thereafter in other subjects from the general category have fto follow the rules of reservation. It is also pointed out that in the other subjects for which appointments have been made, the candidates having lesser marks than the petitioner have been appointed. Therefore, the respondent should be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Philosophy teacher which has not yet been abolished as would appear from an information furnished under R.T.I. vide letter dated 2nd December, 2013 as also the minutes of the Executive Committee meeting held on 17th August, 2013 being part of the same Annexure, Para 7 thereof. Therefore, the petitioner has been compelled to move this Court with the aforesaid prayer for directing the respondent to appoint him on the post of Philosophy teacher in the school in question. 4. The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. It is submitted on their behalf that the Advertisement no. 1/2012 specifically contained a condition i.e. Clause K as per which the Executive Committee of the School, Netarhat Vidyalaya Samiti reserves the right to cancel/amend the appointment process of any or all advertised posts at any time without assigning any reasons and no claim will be admissible against this. It is submitted on their behalf that the Advertisement no. 1/2012 specifically contained a condition i.e. Clause K as per which the Executive Committee of the School, Netarhat Vidyalaya Samiti reserves the right to cancel/amend the appointment process of any or all advertised posts at any time without assigning any reasons and no claim will be admissible against this. On the issue relating to decision of the Executive Committee not to make any appointment to the post of Philosophy teacher, reference has been made to the minutes dated 18th December, 2012, where under the post of Philosophy and Counsellor were modified and were allocated to other science subjects. In support of the aforesaid decision, statements have been made in the counter affidavit that though there was a sanctioned post of Philosophy teacher in the school but for the last few years not even a single student has opted for the same subject neither the same is a compulsory subject nor as an optional subject. This post was advertised in anticipation that students may opt for Philosophy as a compulsory subject but due to change in the trend of education i.e., a general inclination towards science subject. No students have opted to study Philosophy, only 25 students have taken admission in intermediate, but none has opted for Philosophy which is also not a subject at secondary level syllabus. Therefore, to appoint a Philosophy teacher would have been a useless exercise and also a wastage of government money. It is further submitted that the reservation policy has been duly followed in accordance with the prevailing rules on overall existing vacancies and not subject wise. According to the respondents, the decision not to appoint any person in the subject of Philosophy teacher was not taken after the selection process but by the Executive Committee during the selection process itself as per the minutes dated 18th December, 2012, even the resolution of 17th August, 2013 (Annexure-C) also enclosed with the information under R.T.I. by the petitioner shows that the Committee had taken a decision not to appoint a teacher in the subject of Philosophy and a decision was taken to apportion the said post in the other subject. It is further pointed out that the selection process under Advertisement no. 1/2012, which had come to an end has been followed by another Advertisement no. 1/2013. 5. It is further pointed out that the selection process under Advertisement no. 1/2012, which had come to an end has been followed by another Advertisement no. 1/2013. 5. It is submitted further that the challenge to selection process under Advertisement no. 1/2012 by unsuccessful candidate, Uttam Kumar was also negatived by this Court and has been upheld by learned Division bench in L.P.A. No. 112 of 2014 vide judgment reported in 2014 (3) JCR 394 (Jhr) 6. Learned counsel for the respondents have also relied upon a judgment rendered in the case of State of Orissa and Another vs. Rajkishore Nanda and Others, (2010) 6 SCC 777 , in support of their contention that a person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment at best is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no infirmity in the decision of the respondent not to fill up the post of Philosophy teacher which has been taken on reasonable ground. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record, including the judgments relied upon. As is evident the petitioner applied for the subject of Philosophy under Advertisement no. 1/2012 which invited application for different subjects including language, social science agriculture apart from Philosophy. The petitioner though participated in the interview and was shown as placed at serial no. 1 in the merit-list of the said subject, but the respondents took a conscious decision on the ground as indicated in the counter affidavit that no appointment on the post of Philosophy teacher is required to be made. On examination of the reasons shown in support of the aforesaid decision, it appears that there were no students, who opted for the subject of Philosophy in the school in question for the past few years. On examination of the reasons shown in support of the aforesaid decision, it appears that there were no students, who opted for the subject of Philosophy in the school in question for the past few years. On such grounds the decision of the Executive Committee of the Netarhat Vidyalaya Samiti which comprises the Chief Secretary of Government of Jharkhand as also the Special Secretary, Home Department, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, the Joint Secretary, Finance Department as also the Director, Secondary Education, apart from the Principal of the School does not appear to be based upon extraneous consideration or unsustainable reason even on the test of Wednesbury Principle of reasonableness. It is trite to observe here and as has been held in several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court such as in the case of Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, 1991 (3) SCC 47 that a person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. As has been held the employer however cannot be given a license to act arbitrarily. If the decision not to fill up the post is taken on sound and reasonable ground and there is no discrimination shown, the action of the respondent cannot be faulted. 8. In the instant case, the decision not to appoint any teacher on the post of Philosophy does not appear to be arbitrary or unreasonable. No one from the said subject who is having lesser marks has been appointed. As such the persons who had applied for different subjects may have been appointed on the basis of their inter se seniority in the select list for different subjects which is not a ground for discrimination taken by the petitioner. Moreover, the selection process under advertisement no. 1/2012 has already come to an end. The post have been filled up and none of the person appointed are impleaded as respondent in the present case. The said selection process has also been followed by another selection process under Advertisement no. 1/13 for certain posts. The petitioner may have felt sore as unfortunately no appointment on the post of Philosophy teacher has been made by the respondents, but on scrutiny upon well settled legal principles, no arbitrariness or discrimination can be found in the action of the respondents. 9. 1/13 for certain posts. The petitioner may have felt sore as unfortunately no appointment on the post of Philosophy teacher has been made by the respondents, but on scrutiny upon well settled legal principles, no arbitrariness or discrimination can be found in the action of the respondents. 9. Accordingly this Court does not find any reason to issue any direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the said post. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.