Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 711 (JHR)

Bibha Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2016-04-26

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Prashant Kumar, J. In this writ application, the petitioners prayed for quashing the order contained in Memo no. 386 dated 24.4.2014, so far it relates to the petitioners whereby the representation of the petitioner rejected. Petitioners further prayed for issuance of a direction commanding the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Para-Teachers in the Upgraded Middle School, Ramdhera in Silli block of Ranchi District. 2. It is stated that a notice published in the daily newspaper, namely, Prabhat Khabar on 06.08.2010 for selection of Para-Teachers in different Upgraded Middle Schools of Ranchi District. In the said notice, it was mentioned that for each of the Upgraded Middle School, 03(three) Para-Teachers will be selected by the Village Education Committee. The eligibility criteria had also been given in paragraph nos. 1 and 2 of the said notice, whereas the programme for selection had been mentioned at paragraph no.4 of the notice. According to the said programme, a candidate is required to submit his application by 22.08.2010. It was also mentioned that the list of eligible candidates will be published on 24.08.2010 and a meeting of Village Education Committee will be held in the campus of the School on 26.08.2010. The Village Education Committee will submit its proceeding before the Block Education Extension Officer/Additional School Inspector on 28.08.2010. The Block Education Committee will approve the resolution of Village General Meeting on 30.08.2010 and, thereafter, the Block Education Committee will submit its proceeding in the District Office on 31.08.2010. 3. It appears that petitioners applied for their selection as Para-Teachers in Ramdhera Upgraded Middle School in the Silli Block of Ranchi District. They also participated in the selection process, conducted by Village Education Committee on 26.08.2010. It is stated that both the petitioners were selected by the Village Education Committee for the post of Para-Teachers. Thereafter, the Block Education Committee vide its resolution dated 19.04.2011 approved the selection of the petitioners for the post Para-Teachers. It is further stated that when petitioners were not been appointed on the post of Para-Teachers they filed representations on 30.08.2012 and 13.09.2012 (Annexures-4 series) before the respondents. Thereafter, the Block Education Committee vide its resolution dated 19.04.2011 approved the selection of the petitioners for the post Para-Teachers. It is further stated that when petitioners were not been appointed on the post of Para-Teachers they filed representations on 30.08.2012 and 13.09.2012 (Annexures-4 series) before the respondents. It then appears that when, even after filing of the representations, the respondents had not given any heed to the grievance of the petitioners, petitioners along with one Raghunandan Mahto filed writ application in this Court vide W.P.(S) No. 7757/2012 (Annexure-5).The above writ application disposed of vide order 09.07.2013 with direction to the respondents to dispose of the representations of the petitioners within Six Week. It appears that when the respondents had not complied the order within the time stipulated by this Court, then the petitioners filed a contempt case being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 110 of 2014. However, during the pendency of the contempt application, representations of the petitioners rejected on the ground that petitioners have not been found suitable for appointment on the post of Para-Teachers, because they have not passed the examination of Teacher's Eligibility Test (TET). Accordingly, present writ application filed. 4. It is submitted by Sri Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners that in the advertisement (Annexure-1) there is no stipulation that only such candidates will be selected and appointed as Para-Teachers, who had passed the examination of Teacher's Eligibility Test (TET). It is further submitted that the case of the petitioners was considered and they were selected by the Village Education Committee on 26.08.2010 and their selection was approved by the Block Education Committee on 19.04.2011. Thus, it is not open for the State Government or any other authority to change the eligibility criteria and debarred the petitioners from being appointed on the post of Para-Teachers. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. B.Swapna and others reported in (2005)4 SCC-154, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that norms of the selection cannot be altered after commencement of selection process. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioners on the post of Para-Teachers in the Upgraded Middle School, Ramdhera in Silli Block of Ranchi District. 5. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioners on the post of Para-Teachers in the Upgraded Middle School, Ramdhera in Silli Block of Ranchi District. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that from perusal of Annexure-1, it is clear that the notice was issued for selection of 03(three) Para-Teachers in each Upgraded Middle School in Silli Block of Ranchi District. There is nothing in the said notice that if the candidates will be selected, then the State Government is bound to appoint them on the post of Para-Teachers. It is further submitted that during the selection process, the eligibility criteria has not been changed and the list of the selected candidates prepared by the Village Education Committee on the basis of eligibility criteria mentioned in paragraph nos. 1 and 2 of the notice and the same was later on approved by the Block Education Committee. It is submitted that only because, petitioners' name find place in the selection list, they do not acquire any right for appointment on the post of Para-Teachers. It is submitted that the State Government and/or its authority can refuse to appoint the petitioners for valid reasons. It is submitted that the Para-Teachers are being appointed as per the scheme of the Central Government strictly according to the provisions of the Right to Education Act. It is further submitted that the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) vide its notification dated 23.08.2010 had laid down revised eligibility criteria for appointment on the post of Teacher in any Government school. According to the above revised eligibility criteria the candidates should have passed the examination of Teachers Eligibility Test. Under the aforesaid circumstance, since petitioners have not passed the examination of Teachers Eligibility Test, which is mandatory as per the notification of the National Council for Teachers Education therefore, petitioners have not been appointed, because they do not fulfil the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Rule. Accordingly, it is submitted that no mandamus can be issued for appointment of the petitioners as Para-Teachers. 6. Having heard the submissions of the parties, I have gone through the records of the case. 7. Accordingly, it is submitted that no mandamus can be issued for appointment of the petitioners as Para-Teachers. 6. Having heard the submissions of the parties, I have gone through the records of the case. 7. From perusal of Annexure-1, I find that a notice published in the daily newspaper, namely, Prabhat Khabar only for selection of 03(three) Para-Teachers in each Upgraded Middle School in the district of Ranchi. There is nothing in the notice to show that if a candidate will be selected then he must be appointed on the said post. It is also not in dispute that the selection process was held as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the notice. There is no complain that the norms of selection has been altered after commencement of selection process. It is an admitted position that the Village Education Committee had prepared the select list as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the notice and the same has been approved by the Block Education Committee. Under the said circumstance, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. B. Swapna and others (Supra ) has no application in the facts of the case, because the norms of selection has not been altered after commencement of selection process. 8. Now, the question arose for determination in this writ application as to whether, petitioners acquired any legal right to be appointed on the post of Para-Teachers, because their names find place in the select list? Answer to the aforesaid question is in negative. It has been held by their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and others, reported in (1974) 3 SCC 220 that "the mere fact that a candidate's name appears in the list will not entitle him to a mandamus that he be appointed". In the aforesaid judgment at paragraph no. 11, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that : "It must be remembered that the petition is for mandamus. This court has pointed out in Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College, that in order that mandamus may be issued to compel an authority to do something, it must be shown that the statute impose a legal duty on that authority and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College, that in order that mandamus may be issued to compel an authority to do something, it must be shown that the statute impose a legal duty on that authority and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. Since there is no legal duty on the State Government to appoint all the 15 persons who are in the list and the petitioners have no legal right under the rules to enforce its performance the petition is clearly misconceived." 9. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India reported in (1991)3 SCC 47 ,had approved the view taken in State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and others (Supra) and held :- "7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the Vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana Vs. Subhash Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v.State of Haryana, or Jatendra Kumr Vs. State of Punjab." 10. It is worth mentioning that in The State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and others (Supra), similar plea was taken that the State Government has no right to introduce a new rule by which they can restrict the appointments of selected candidates. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had answered the said plea in negative at paragraph no. It is worth mentioning that in The State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and others (Supra), similar plea was taken that the State Government has no right to introduce a new rule by which they can restrict the appointments of selected candidates. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had answered the said plea in negative at paragraph no. 12 which runs as follows : "12. It was, however, contended by Dr. Singhvi on behalf of the respondents that since rule 8 of part C makes candidates who obtained 45% or more in the competitive examination eligible for appointment, the State Government had no right to introduce a new rule by which they can restrict the appointments to only those they have scored not less than 55%. It is contended that the State Government have acted arbitrarily in fixing 55% as the minimum marks for selection and this is contrary to the rule referred to above. The argument has no force.......... This is essentially a matter of administrative policy and if the Haryana State Government think that in the interest of judicial competence persons securing less than 55% of marks in the competitive examination should not be selected for appointment, those who got less than 55% have no right to claim that the selection be made of also those candidates who obtained less than the minimum fixed by the State Government........" 11. In the instant case, as noticed above, the Para-Teachers are being appointed in different Government Upgraded Middle School as per the scheme of the Central Government. The Central Government used to circulate guideline to the State Government for appointment on the post of Para-Teachers, as it appears from the documents attached with Annexure-7. One of the guideline of the Central Government is that no teacher should be appointed in any Govt. School, who has not passed the examination of Teachers' Eligibility Test. It appears that following the aforesaid guidelines of the Central Government, the respondents by the impugned order had refused to appoint the petitioners as Para-Teachers. Thus the reasons assigned by the authority is reasonable and in-consonance with the statutory rule, framed by the National Council for Teachers Education. Thus, there is no arbitrariness in the said reason. 12. Since, petitioners have not acquired legal right to be appointed as Para-Teachers, therefore, no mandamus can be issued for appointing them on the said post. 13. Thus the reasons assigned by the authority is reasonable and in-consonance with the statutory rule, framed by the National Council for Teachers Education. Thus, there is no arbitrariness in the said reason. 12. Since, petitioners have not acquired legal right to be appointed as Para-Teachers, therefore, no mandamus can be issued for appointing them on the said post. 13. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in this writ application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Application dismissed.