Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 981 (JHR)

Kokila Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2014-09-17

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. In all these writ petitions, the primary question involved is whether the cut off date for reckoning the upper age limit in the advertisements issued in the month of November 2013 by different district authorities for recruitment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Government Primary Schools Class I to V i.e. 01.08.2013 is arbitrary or not? Whether such cut off date for upper age limit should have been reckoned as 01.07.2011 instead? The matter was earlier taken up on few dates and on 20.8.2014, this Court after recording the plea of the petitioners and the stand of the respondents as well on the aforesaid issue, requested the State to accord due consideration to the issues involved and come forth with their considered stands. The order dated 20.08.2014 is quoted here-in-under for better appreciation of the issue involved which have also crystallized between the parties:- "In all these writ petitions the petitioners were candidates under the Advertisement no. 27 of 2011 for appointment of Assistant Teachers in the Primary School for Class I to V under the Government of Jharkhand. It is also their case that before issuance of the said advertisement no recruitment to such posts were conducted after the last exercise was done under the advertisement of 2002. These petitioners and many others were eligible as per the maximum age limit prescribed under the said advertisement by cut off date 1st July, 2011. However, the entire process of appointment under the said advertisement and subsequent corrigendum issued thereunder were subject matter of change by certain persons in Anjuman Taraqqie Urdu Jharkhand & Others, W.P. (S) No. 3099, 6592 and 6495 of 2011; Krishna Murari Prasad, W.P. (S) No. 3099 of 2011 and Balmiki Chaubey, W.P. (S) No. 6495 of 2011. The matter was considered by learned Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 22nd November, 2011 and accordingly the entire process of selection undertaken under the advertisement no. 27 of 2011 was quashed. The detailed reasons were recorded in the said judgment which has also been enclosed in the instant writ petitions such as Annexure-3 in W.P. (S) No. 7122 of 2013. 27 of 2011 was quashed. The detailed reasons were recorded in the said judgment which has also been enclosed in the instant writ petitions such as Annexure-3 in W.P. (S) No. 7122 of 2013. While quashing the entire selection undertaken under the said advertisement, the learned Division Bench however proceeded to observe and directed that the State Government should proceed for appointment of the teachers de novo by following guidelines issued by the NCTE and in accordance with the Rules for appointment as the NCTE has only prescribed the eligibility criteria, passing of TET whereas, the prescribed procedure for appointment on the post is in the prerogative of the State and within its jurisdiction. Learned court keeping into account that the session for schools will start from the month of July, 2012, gave an anxious consideration thereto and directed the Respondent State to take steps that, all appointment can be made by the State Government before next session. It is true that the appointment process could not be completed by the next session i.e. July, 2012 and in fact has yet not been completed. In the mean time, the State framed the Jharkhand Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2012 notified on 5th September, 2012, inter alia, laying down the procedure, conditions and the eligibility criteria for recruitment to the post of Assistant Teachers/Urdu Teachers for Primary School Class I to V and Class VI to VIII. At the same time, under the Advertisement no. 95 of 2012 the State also undertook an exercise for holding Teachers Eligibility Test exam. The said exam was held some time in the month of May, 2013 and these petitioners claimed to have qualified in TET. The Respondent State thereafter proceeded to issue advertisement in individual districts in November, 2013 for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers and Urdu Teachers in Primary School Class I to IV. The cut off date for making an application under the said advertisement was 26th November, 2013 and upper age limit fixed under the said advertisement was to be reckoned on the cut off date i.e. 1st August, 2013. As per the said advertisement, the upper age limit was prescribed for different categories with relaxation of 5 years in each category in terms with Rule 13 of 2012 Rules. Under the advertisement of 27 of 2011, the upper age limit of different categories of candidates were also prescribed. As per the said advertisement, the upper age limit was prescribed for different categories with relaxation of 5 years in each category in terms with Rule 13 of 2012 Rules. Under the advertisement of 27 of 2011, the upper age limit of different categories of candidates were also prescribed. Comparison of the upper age limit under the Advertisement no. 27 of 2011 and the advertisement issued in November, 2013 shows that in spite of relaxation of 5 years of age in the advertisement issued in November, 2013, the upper age limit remained the same for a categories of candidates as was fixed under the Advertisement no. 27 of 2011. As a result of upper age limit fixed under the instant advertisement, all these petitioners became ineligible to apply for and compete for appointment as Assistant Teachers/Urdu Teachers in the Primary School in the State of Jharkhand. These petitioners have therefore approached this Court, inter alia either for reckoning the age of upper age limit from the cut off date i.e. 1st July, 2011 as was provided under the Advertisement no. 27 of 2011 or to grant them proportion ate relaxation in the upper age limit, so that they maybe eligible by cut off date 1st August, 2013 under the instant advertisement compete and get appointed for the said post of Assistant Teachers. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the background of the aforesaid facts, have stated that for no fault of these petitioners they are being denied valuable opportunity to participate and compete under the instant advertisement because of such age bar when the entire selection process under the Advertisement no. 27 of 2011 was quashed by this Court on account of several lacuna, irregularities and illegalities found during the course of selection process. It is submitted that such a recourse on the part of the State would be rather inequitable and a wide category of eligible persons who could have given a larger choice to the State to appoint there from competent teachers for primary schools would be denied, if the plea of the petitioners is not accepted. It is submitted that such a recourse on the part of the State would be rather inequitable and a wide category of eligible persons who could have given a larger choice to the State to appoint there from competent teachers for primary schools would be denied, if the plea of the petitioners is not accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that in similar circumstances in a matter relating to appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division), learned Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents to give relaxation to all candidates by fixing the cut off date as 31st January, 2003 instead of 31st January, 2008 under the Advertisement no. 13 of 2008 vide its judgment reported in Sanjeev Kumar Sahay & Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2008 (3) JCR 267 and other analoguos cases. It is submitted that by the same reason and logic in the subsequent exercise for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under Advertisement no. 4 of 2013 also the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhola Nath Rajak & Others vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, 2014 (1) JCR 616 directed the respondents to reck on cut off date for calculating upper age limit as 31st January, 2009 in stead of 31st January, 2013. The learned Division Bench in those cases too kin to account that there had been no recruitment over a period of time and which could have rendered many aspirant ineligible on account of a bar of upper age limit. Learned Division bench also took into account that no harm would be done if the State has a wider range of candidates to compete for and get appointed the post of Civil Judge (Junior Judge) which is being made after considerable interregnum. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to provisions under 2012 Rules, specifically Rule 28 under Chapter IV, thereof which is in the nature of Removal of Difficulty Clause; Henry VIII Clause. It has been submitted on their part that the entire appointment process has yet not been completed and till date only a preparation of merit list is being under taken. The State should there fore be directed to relax the upper age limit or treat the upper age limit reckoned from 1st July, 2011, so that all such persons who were candidates under the advertisement no. The State should there fore be directed to relax the upper age limit or treat the upper age limit reckoned from 1st July, 2011, so that all such persons who were candidates under the advertisement no. 27 of 11 including the present petitioners may have an equal opportunity to participate and compete with other eligible persons under instant advertisement. A counter affidavit has been filed earlier on behalf of Respondent State taking a stand that the instant selection process is being undertaken under Rules of 2012 which permit relaxation of 5 years of age which has been incorporated in the said advertisement. However, in the wake of the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners the learned counsel for the Respondent State, Mr. S.K. Verma and Mr. Sumir Prasad, Standing Counsels seek a short time to obtain instructions from the competent authority under the Respondent State, so that the matter can be reconsidered at the highest level be fore it is finally adjudicated by this Court. On the aforesaid request of the learned counsel for the Respondent State, let the matter appear after 2 weeks i.e. on 10th September, 2014 as the issues raised herein require due consideration at the level of the respondent authorities of the State. It is expected that pending their consideration in the aforesaid period the selection process may not be finalized. Let a copy of this order be handed over to learned counsel for the Respondent-State." 2. The State has filed a supplementary counter affidavit thereafter, inter alia, taking the stand that – (i) the advertisements have been issued in consonance with the 2012 Rules and no infirmity in the advertisements has been pointed out by the petitioners; (ii) rules itself are not under challenge; (iii) referring to the various judgments in the counter affidavit passed earlier in one or the other cases by this Court, the respondents have also submitted that fixation of upper age limit is fully in consonance with the public policy as also the ratio laid down by the judgment of the Hon'ble Court earlier; (iv) they have also submitted that the selection process has been completed in two districts of Ranchi and Palamau, where merit list has been also published and appointment letters have also been issued while in the district of Koderma, the merit list has been published on the Website. Apart form above contentions, during course of argument, Mr. Srijit Choudhary, learned GA has also submitted that there is nothing arbitrary in fixation of cut off date as 01.08.2013 under the said advertisements. The entire exercise initiated under Advertisement No. 27 of 2011 was quashed earlier by the Division Bench of this Court and nothing remained so far as the said selection exercise is concerned. It is further submitted that the present exercise has been conducted under the new 2012 rules in line with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 which requires qualifying of Teachers Eligibility Test. No right flows from the previous judgment in favour of the petitioners to seek relaxation in upper age limit or shifting of cut off date of upper age limit. Further arguments have also been made that once the selection process has commenced, the rules of the game can not be changed. Learned counsel also submitted that in case, the pleas of the petitioners are accepted, who are only few in numbers, the entire selection process would be delayed where thousands of applicants are involved and appointments have to be made for thousands of vacancies This itself would lead to inequity. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents have also relied upon the same judgment passed by the learned Division Bench in the case of Bhola Nath Rajak & Others vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, 2014 (1) JCR 616 and submitted that the necessary conditions or factors to establish that the cut off of date is arbitrary, has not been pleaded or established by the petitioners. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Dhananjay Malik and Others vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others, (2008) 4 SCC 171 . 4. Learned Senior counsel for the Jharkhand Academic Council has also argued in support of the respondent-State. It has been submitted on the part of the learned senior counsel that the case of the Judicial Officers is distinguishable from the present one, as in the said case, appointments were made after considerable number of years. In the instant case, Rule 13 itself has taken care of such eventuality by granting relaxation of 5 years. It has been submitted on the part of the learned senior counsel that the case of the Judicial Officers is distinguishable from the present one, as in the said case, appointments were made after considerable number of years. In the instant case, Rule 13 itself has taken care of such eventuality by granting relaxation of 5 years. The last selection and appointment was made in 2009 and by giving relaxation of five years therefrom, any recruitment conducted in the year 2014 would be taken care by the Rules itself. It is also reiterated that the Rules are not under challenge. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further supplemented their arguments as was advanced on the last occasion and has been taken note in the order dated 20.08.2014. It has been submitted on their part that at least three writ petitions were preferred immediately after issuance of the advertisement in November, 2013 seeking intervention in the matter of fixing the cut off date for upper age limit or for proportionate relaxation in the upper age limit. Reliance has once again been placed in the case of Bhola Nath Rajak & Others (supra) relating to the Judicial Officers i.e. Civil Judge (Junior Division) where taking into account all attendant facts, the learned Division Bench has directed to shift the cut off date to 31.01.2009 in place of 10.12.2013 as notified under advertisements Adv. No. 4 of 2013 and made it applicable to all similarly placed candidates, who posses other qualifications as per the said advertisement. Further, it has been submitted that comparing the upper age limit fixed in both advertisement Adv. No. 27 of 2011 and those published in November, 2013, the State has not provided for any relaxation in upper age limit, which remains at the maximum of 40 years to general category and also similar upper age limit for different categories such as Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste, Backward Caste etc. Therefore, no relaxation has been granted by the respondents. 6. It has been further argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there has been instances in cases of the Combined Civil Services Recruitment when in the JPSC Combined Civil Services Exam, by a corrigendum, the respondent-State and the JPSC has shifted the cut off date of upper age limit to 01.08.2006 from 31.07.2010. 6. It has been further argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there has been instances in cases of the Combined Civil Services Recruitment when in the JPSC Combined Civil Services Exam, by a corrigendum, the respondent-State and the JPSC has shifted the cut off date of upper age limit to 01.08.2006 from 31.07.2010. The said corrigendum has been brought on record as Annexure-17 to the supplementary affidavit dated 19.08.2014 filed in W.P. (S) No. 7880 of 2013. Reliance has also been placed upon the first judgment in the case of the Judicial Officers rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Sahay & Others vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, 2008 (3) J.C.R. 267 . Comparisons have been made to the facts of that case with the present case. By referring to paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and other paragraphs including paragraph-25, it has been submitted that in the present case also, there was a specific direction by the learned Division Bench while quashing the previous selection exercise under Adv. No. 27 of 2011, to complete the process by July, 2012 itself and also to frame requisite Rules for conducting a fresh examination. The respondent-State again delayed the matter and as a result, these petitioners stood disqualified only on the ground of upper age limit. All these petitioners claimed to have qualified the Teachers Eligibility Test held some time in May, 2013. It is submitted that for no fault of these petitioners, the earlier selection exercise was quashed by the learned Division Bench only on finding that there was several lacuna in the process of selection on the part of the respondent-State. It is, therefore, submitted that the cut off date fixed by the respondents is rather arbitrary and amounts to denying them equal opportunity of employment as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the relevant materials on record. The issue which is to be considered in the present writ petitions have been referred to in the opening paragraphs of this judgment. The attendant facts have also been noticed in the previous order dated 20.08.2014 and submissions on the aforesaid issues have been culled out in the preceding paragraphs in the present judgment as well. The issue which is to be considered in the present writ petitions have been referred to in the opening paragraphs of this judgment. The attendant facts have also been noticed in the previous order dated 20.08.2014 and submissions on the aforesaid issues have been culled out in the preceding paragraphs in the present judgment as well. The main issue which is to be considered and decided is, as to whether the cut off date for upper age limit has been fixed in a manner which has resulted in arbitrariness by denying opportunity to those who were eligible candidates in the Adv. No. 27 of 2011 and had participated as well. The learned Division Bench of this Court vide judgment rendered in the case of Anjuman Taraqquie-Urdu, Jharkhand & Others vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, 2011 (4) JLJR 387 had quashed the entire selection process initiated under Adv. No. 27 of 2011. Various infirmities were found in selection process such as Preliminary Test as fixed under the original advertisement and Rules were converted into altogether a new test making Preliminary Test at par with Teachers Eligibility Test, nor amendments were effected in the Rules which were made retrospectively applicable to the selection process. The advertisement itself was in respect of huge number of vacancies running in about 18 thousands whereas 1,31,000 applications were received from the candidates from the entire State. After initiation of the process, the State Government became wise and issued guidelines and notifications to make the selection process in conformity with the guidelines issued by the NCTE and at that time also, there was no decision that the candidates who appeared in Teachers Eligibility Test for selection and appointment, shall not have to go in main examination. Thereafter, the Jharkhand Academic Council was directed to give appointment to such selected candidates directly on the post without their being completion or having the main examination. The learned Division Bench found that the action of the State Government had created such a situation where none of the candidates were sure as to which Rule is in existence and whether the examination has to be conducted as per the advertisement conditions. The concluding paragraphs of the judgments from 27 to 30 are being quoted herein-under:- "27. The learned Division Bench found that the action of the State Government had created such a situation where none of the candidates were sure as to which Rule is in existence and whether the examination has to be conducted as per the advertisement conditions. The concluding paragraphs of the judgments from 27 to 30 are being quoted herein-under:- "27. In view of the above reasons, we found from the facts of the case that nothing survives in the advertisement dated 26.03.2011 in view of the subsequent act and act so the State Government except misleading the all candidates who appeared in the examination which is said to be 1,31,000 in numbers. 28. We tried to explore the possibility of saving the interest of the candidates who secured good marks in the examination but it is difficult in view of the fact that the examination it self was contrary to Rules. Process of selection which should be transparent, known to all and thereafter there must be a fair competition which, in the facts of the case, is totally missing and therefore, we have no option but to declare the entire process taken after the issuance of the advertisement dated 26.3.2011, to be absolutely illegal, null and void. 29. In addition to above other points, which have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition with respect to prescribing of minimum marks for tribal and regional language for particular district and requiring of obtaining minimum marks are concerned, we are not deciding these issues in view of quashing of entire selections. Accordingly, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed and consequently the Advertisement dated 26.3.2011 and entire process of selection undertaken under this advertisement is quashed. We also do not find any force in the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that issues raised are beyond the scope of writ because of the reason the petitioner has placed on record all relevant facts and more important glaring illegalities are apparent from the face of the record placed by the State and the Academic Council of the State and the State got full opportunity to justify their own stand and this Court cannot ignore these illegalities. However, it is expected from the State Government to now proceed for appointment of the teachers de novo by following the guide lines issued by the NCTE and in accordance with the Rules for appointment as the NCTE has only prescribed the eligibility criteria, passing of the TET whereas, the prescribing procedure for appointment on the post is the prerogative of the State and is in its jurisdiction, therefore, the procedure may be evolved by the State Government so as to avoid further delay in the matter. The session for schools will start from the month of July, 2012, therefore, before that, all appointment can be made by the State Government before next session. 30. The writ petition is allowed as above. In view of the fact that the entire process of selection and the advertisement dated 26.03.2011 have been quashed and set aside, therefore, writ petitions being W.P. (PIL) No. 6495 of 2011 and W.P. (S) No. 6592 are also disposed of with observation that before taking any decision all issues which have been raised in this petition and in W.P. (PIL) No. 6495 of 2011 and W.P. (S) No. 6592 of 2011 may also be considered and if the State finds more corrections and amendments in the Rules are required they may be made in accordance with law, if needed only." 8. It is to be observed that the learned Division Bench would have never intended while quashing the entire selection exercise under the said advertisement and directing the State Government to proceed de novo for appointment of Teachers by following the guidelines issued by the NCTE and complete the process of appointment by July, 2012 that it would lead to a situation where the entire selection process could be delayed so long as it appears has happened now. In any case, it could never have been in contemplation even for the authors of the said judgment their Lordships that the quashing of the selection exercise under Adv. No. 27 of 2011 would itself create inequality amongst those who were eligible on the date of the selection process. The present exercise undertaken is being conducted in conformity with the 2012 Rules and those who have qualified the TET Exam are only eligible candidates, who could have applied for such posts. No. 27 of 2011 would itself create inequality amongst those who were eligible on the date of the selection process. The present exercise undertaken is being conducted in conformity with the 2012 Rules and those who have qualified the TET Exam are only eligible candidates, who could have applied for such posts. There is no dispute on the aforesaid legal position that the advertisement itself is otherwise in consonance with the Rules. However, an inequitable situation, which has been thrown up after quashing of the earlier selection process and fixation of upper age limit reckoned as on 01.08.2013 under the present advertisement, needs to be corrected. What is arbitrary on the touchstone of Article 14 is negation of equality. In this regard, the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and Others vs. K. Shyam Sundar & Others, 2011 (8) SCC 737 , paragraphs 50 to 52 are illuminative of the meaning of arbitrariness and unreasonableness and are being quoted herein-under:- "50. In Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, this Court held that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because an action that is arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality. Whenever therefore, there is arbitrariness in State action, whether it be of the legislature or of the executive, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action. 51. In Sharma Transport vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, this Court denied arbitrariness observing that a party has to satisfy that the action was not reasonable and as manifestly arbitrary. The expression arbitrary means, act done in an unreasonable manner, as fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure without adequate determining principle, not founded in the nature of things, non-rational, not done or acting according to reason or judgment, depending on the will alone. 52. In Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group, this Court held that:- "205. Arbitrariness on the part of the legislature so as to make the legislation violative of Article 14 of the Constitution should ordinarily be manifest arbitrariness." 9. The expression arbitrary means act done in a unreasonable manner as fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure without adequate determining principle, not founded in the nature of things, non-rational, not done or acting according to reason or judgment depending on the will alone. The expression arbitrary means act done in a unreasonable manner as fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure without adequate determining principle, not founded in the nature of things, non-rational, not done or acting according to reason or judgment depending on the will alone. In the matter of principle governing the fixation of cut off date, the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time are illustrative. In the case of CSIR vs. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal, 2009 (3) SCC 35, it has been clearly held that the State is entitled to fix a cut off date. Such a decision can be struck down only when it is arbitrary. The limits of judicial review in interference with cut off date is, therefore, well settled. Whether the cut off date of 01.08.2013 in the present advertisement in question is arbitrary or not, is a question to be determined. The present petitioners and all those, who were similarly placed and were candidates under the Adv. No. 27 of 2011 were eligible on the cut off date i.e. 01.07.2011 as fixed in the said advertisement. The said advertisement and selection process were quashed not on account of any fault on the part of the petitioners but on account of serious lacuna and illegalities found in the entire selection process and also failure to comply with NCTE guidelines. The State was justified in framing new Rules of 2012, which took time and in the process failed to honour the deadline suggested by the learned Division Bench. It finally came up with the advertisement in November, 2013. In the entire process, those who were eligible on cut off date i.e. 01.07.2011, but had become ineligible on account of fixation of upper age limit as on 01.08.2013 were ousted. The aforesaid inequitable situation itself was the result of arbitrary fixation of upper age limit i.e. 01.08.2013. If the cut off date of 01.07.2011 is to be reckoned when such petitioners and other similarly situated candidates were eligible, the State would not have suffered on any count at all. The last date for submitting application as has been fixed under the present advertisement is some time in the month of December, 2013. All those who became eligible after 01.07.2011, would also be eligible to apply under the present advertisement. The last date for submitting application as has been fixed under the present advertisement is some time in the month of December, 2013. All those who became eligible after 01.07.2011, would also be eligible to apply under the present advertisement. However, these petitioners and other similarly situated candidates would be denied equal opportunity of participation in the present recruitment exercise for no fault of theirs. This inequality, which has been created, needs to be corrected by applying principle of justice, equity and good conscience. In this regard, the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhola Nath Rajak & Others (supra) also is to be relied on. The cut off date in the case of Judicial Officers have been shifted by virtue of the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court reported in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Sahay & Others (supra) and in the case of Bhola Nath Rajak & Others (supra). In their cases, the background facts and reasons to issue such a direction was that the recruitment exercise for appointing Judicial Officers of the rank of Junior Division, Civil Judge, had not been undertaken for a considerable length of time. In the second judgment the previous recruitment exercise has been conducted in the year 2009 and thereafter, a fresh recruitment exercise was being initiated under Adv. No. 04 of 2013 published on 10.12.2013 after a period of more than four years. Considering all aspect of the matter and the judgment relied upon by the parties including the State respondent, the learned Division Bench found that shifting the cut off date to 31.01.2009 and making it applicable to all similarly placed candidates who possessed other requisite qualification as per the Advertisement No. 04 of 2013 would only lead to more participation of interested persons and a large area of choice to the respondents to appoint suitable person out of them. In the present case, as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties, the last exercise for appointment of Primary Teachers took place in the year 2009 and thereafter the exercise initiated under Adv. No. 27 of 2011 was quashed. The present exercise has been initiated after more than four years from 2009. However, that alone may not be the only relevant consideration in the instant case. No. 27 of 2011 was quashed. The present exercise has been initiated after more than four years from 2009. However, that alone may not be the only relevant consideration in the instant case. There was a judicial intervention in the earlier exercise under which the Advertisement of 27 of 2011 was quashed by this Court finding it suffering from severe infirmities and at the same time directing the State to complete the exercise afresh by July, 2012 i.e. before next session. As already observed earlier, it could not have in contemplation of the learned Division Bench at the relevant point of time that by virtue of the said judgment those willing candidates who had participated in the Advertisement No. 27 of 11 would be denied valuable opportunity to participate in the fresh selection exercise. This by any stretch of reason or logic or imagination cannot be said to be a proper and judicious state of affairs. The writ petitioners have approached this Court well within time immediately after issuance of the advertisement in question. None of the Rules need to be amended as the advertisement has duly been issued in conformity with the Rules of 2012. However, if the cut off date for upper age limit is modified to 01.07.2011 instead of 01.08.2013, a grave inequality, which has cropped up, will be corrected. This Court in its bounden duty to intervene in such circumstances, will not shirk from doing justice to the parties. Therefore, upon a considered opinion of all aspects of the matter, the cut off date of upper age limit fixed as 01.08.2013 needs to be modified and treated as 01.07.2011. 10. However, having determined the core issue as aforesaid, this Court is also conscious that the process of selection may have undergone to considerable extent by now in different districts. As has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the State, in the district of Ranchi and Palamau upon preparation of the merit list, appointment letters have also been issued to one or the other persons. The merit list, therefore, has become final in those cases and if the benefit of this judgment is accorded to such candidates in the district of Ranchi and Palamau afresh, that may lead to another inequitable situation by ousting those who have already come in the merit list for being considered for being appointed. The merit list, therefore, has become final in those cases and if the benefit of this judgment is accorded to such candidates in the district of Ranchi and Palamau afresh, that may lead to another inequitable situation by ousting those who have already come in the merit list for being considered for being appointed. This Court would be loath to take such a course. However, for rest of the districts though the selection process may be in the process of finalization, but, the time has not yet lost, if an injustice has to be corrected. The process of selection has remained pending even after quashing of the earlier selection process on 11.09.2011 itself by the Judgment passed by the learned Division Bench till date. It can wait for atleast one more month. In such circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to issue the following directions. 11. The respondent authorities of the State and the concerned district would issue corrigendum to the original advertisement inviting application from only those candidates who were eligible as per the upper age limit by the cut off date 01.07.2011 under the Adv. No. 27 of 2011 and had applied as well as participated in the same and have qualified the TET exam held in May, 2013 but have become ineligible upon fixation of upper age limit as 01.08.2013 under the present Advertisement. The respondent-State would devise appropriate method and lay down necessary terms and conditions in the corrigendum to be issued in line with the aforesaid directions. 12. Let such corrigendum be issued within a period of two weeks. The eligible candidates as aforesaid be allowed a period of 15 days time to make such application by fixing the last date for making such application in the corrigendum which is to be issued. The respondents would, thereafter, complete the selection exercise after considering the cases of all those who have also applied in the original advertisement and all those, who are eligible and have applied as per the corrigendum, which is to be issued. 13. Let it be made clear that all the other conditions of the advertisement stand as it is, except to the extent of modification/shifting of the cut off date for reckoning the upper age limit from 01.08.2013 to 01.07.2011. 14. These writ petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms.