Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 856 (JHR)

Manita Tirkey v. State of Jharkhand

2015-07-27

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2015
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In both these writ petitions, the common grievances of the petitioners arise on their non selection as Teacher in Hindi Subject in the Upgraded Middle School even though they had secured more marks than the last selected candidate. 3. The petitioner in W. P. (S) No. 2886 of 2015 had secured 180 marks in ST Category and the petitioner in W. P. (S) No. 2887 of 2015 had secured 190 marks in the same category where last selected candidate had secured 176 marks. That is why they have approached this Court seeking direction upon the respondent-Jharkhand Academic Council to declare their result and also for quashing of the declaration of the result of the said exam as their names were not recommended. 4. The short point involved in the instant writ petitions is covered by the ratio laid down in the case of Gita Kumari Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Ors. in W. P. (S) No. 1318 of 2015 dated 21.07.2015 as would appear from the stand of the respondents also in these writ petitions. These two petitioners did not have the optional subject of Hindi in graduation course which they undertook from Ranchi University. As per the Annexure -1 of both writ petitions, Hindi was not an optional subject rather it was compulsory subject which alone was not enough for them to stake a claim for appointment as a Teacher in Hindi subject in terms of Adv. No. 93/11. 5. The very issue was under consideration in the case of Gita Kumari (Supra) where it was found that the said candidate had not got Hindi as optional subject in the Bachelor of Arts course from Vinoba Bhave University though she had other optional subjects apart from Hindi in the graduation course like the present petitioners. Para 3 to 5 of the judgment rendered in the case of Gita Kumari (Supra) is quoted here-in-under:- “3. Such candidates whose documents were wanting, were required to appear before the Jharkhand Academic Council on different dates specified under the Advertisement No. 75/2014 (Annexure-3). Para 3 to 5 of the judgment rendered in the case of Gita Kumari (Supra) is quoted here-in-under:- “3. Such candidates whose documents were wanting, were required to appear before the Jharkhand Academic Council on different dates specified under the Advertisement No. 75/2014 (Annexure-3). Petitioner however has not been able to satisfy on submission of marks sheet of Bihar Intermediate Council for Intermediate of Arts and Bachelor of Arts issued by the Vinoba Bhave University including B.Ed certificate issued by IGNOU that she was fully eligible for being appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher in Hindi. This is the reason pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-JAC that in the Graduation Exam which the petitioner passed in general i.e. Pass Course in January 1994, in none of the three optional subjects, Hindi was the optional subject of the petitioner, rather History, Sociology and Economics were optional subjects. Therefore, she was ineligible for being appointed as a Graduate Trained Teacher in Hindi subject under the said advertisement which require a particular candidate to have Graduation in the subject in which she is interested for being appointed. 4. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the marks sheet of Bachelor of Arts (General) at Annexure-4/1 also to show that in the subject of Hindi, she obtained 93 marks out of 200 marks, but the said subject of Hindi is not one of the optional subject of B.A.(General) Exam which she had undertaken, rather, it was the subject which all other candidates undertaking the Bachelor of Arts Course have to undertake. This subject of Hindi, as is pointed out, is a language subject which apart from three of the optional subjects of Pass Course / General Course, every candidate has to undertake and pass. This subject is also shown as a composition subject and not as a optional subject. 5. Having taken note of the aforesaid relevant details of the petitioner's case, it is apparent that the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria of having a subject of Hindi in the Graduation Course as a optional subject. Therefore, the respondent-JAC has not included her name after scrutiny of her marks sheet for final results. Action of the respondent-JAC therefore cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity as it is not in consonance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement. Therefore, the respondent-JAC has not included her name after scrutiny of her marks sheet for final results. Action of the respondent-JAC therefore cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity as it is not in consonance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement. The writ petition therefore has to fail and it is accordingly dismissed. ” 6. The petitioners are therefore ineligible in terms of advertisement no. 93/11 for being considered and appointed as teacher in Hindi subject in the upgraded middle school in terms of the ratio laid down in the case of Gita Kumari (Supra). Therefore, these writ petitions being devoid of merit are, accordingly, dismissed.