Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 17 (JHR)

Anup Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand

2014-01-06

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
JUDGMENT : By Court. - The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to consider his case for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. 2. Pursuant to Advertisement No. 05 of 2007 which was published on 21.04.2007, the petitioner appeared and he was declared successful in the written examination. The examination was conducted on 10.08.2008 and the candidates who appeared in the examination pursuant to advertisement issued on 21.04.2007 were required to submit their B.Ed. certificate within three months from the date of examination. Thus, the petitioner was required to submit the certificate of B.Ed. degree by 10.11.2008. However, the result of B.Ed. examination in which the petitioner had appeared at the time when he participated in the selection process pursuant to Advertisement No. 05 of 2007, has been published on 16.01.2013 and thereafter, in view of the aforesaid, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent nos.2 and 3 stating that since in the advertisement itself, it was indicated that a candidate was required to submit certificate of B.Ed. degree within three months from the date of examination and since the petitioner has failed to submit his B.Ed. certificate by 10.11.2008, the petitioner was not offered appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. 4. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, though at the time when advertisement was issued and the petitioner appeared in the selection process, the petitioner had already written the B.Ed examination however, for no fault of the petitioner the result was published in the year, 2013 and therefore, the petitioner who had qualified in the written test, may be considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. 6. As against the above, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2 and 3 has reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submitted that since the petitioner did not acquire the requisite qualification by 10.11.2008, no direction can be given for considering the case of the petitioner for appointment. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 has brought to the notice of the Court an order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6071 of 2009, where under also the similar claim raised by a candidate has been rejected by order dated 17.07.2012. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 has brought to the notice of the Court an order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6071 of 2009, where under also the similar claim raised by a candidate has been rejected by order dated 17.07.2012. 7. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in view of the fact that the petitioner could not secure B.Ed. degree by 10.11.2008, no direction can be issued to the respondents for considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition lacks merit. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.