Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 833 (JHR)

Sahdeo Kumar v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-05-08

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2017
JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - Seeking a direction upon the respondents to permit him to participate in Joint Graduate-trained Teachers'' Competitive Examination, 2016, the petitioners who possess PostGraduate Degree in Khortha language have approached this Court. 2. Heard. 3. Briefly stated, pursuant to Advertisement No. 21/2016 inviting applications for appointment on the post of Graduate-trained Teacher in Government Secondary Schools, the petitioners attempted to submit their applications, however, the same was declined. All the petitioners are Graduate with Honours in different subjects viz. Geography, Philosophy, Economics and Political Science. Their mark-sheets for Graduation would reveal that Khortha was not one of the subjects in graduation, not even a compulsory subject. The petitioners on the basis of a higher qualification, that is, Postgraduate Degree in Khortha are seeking appointment to the post of Post Graduate-trained Teacher. Their claim is founded on proviso to sub-Rule (I)(i) to Rule 9 of 2015 Rules, which is commonly known as Jharkhand Government Secondary School Teachers & Non-teaching Staff Appointment and Service Condition Rules, 2015 and letter dated 05.08.2009. They have pleaded that in previous recruitment exercises similarly situated candidates possessing higher qualification i.e., Post-Graduate Degree in Khortha have been appointed. 4. An appointment to a post must be made in consonance with the extant rules. Rule 9 (I)(i) provides the minimum educational qualification for appointment on the post of teacher in the secondary schools. The minimum educational qualification is "Graduation in the subject concerned with 45% marks", which has been relaxed for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates to 40% in Graduation. No doubt, a higher qualification is not a disqualification for appointment to a post but, the higher qualification must be in the same stream. The petitioners who at the Graduation level did not study Khortha language, as it was not one of the subjects in Graduation; either compulsory or optional, though compulsory subject is not relevant, cannot claim that they possess requisite qualification as provided in Rule 9(I)(i). In "State of Uttarakhand & Ors v. Deep Chandra Tewari & Anr." (2013) 15 SCC 557 , the Supreme Court has observed as under : 11. We are conscious of the principle that when particular qualifications are prescribed for a post, the candidature of a candidate possessing higher qualification cannot be rejected on that basis. In "State of Uttarakhand & Ors v. Deep Chandra Tewari & Anr." (2013) 15 SCC 557 , the Supreme Court has observed as under : 11. We are conscious of the principle that when particular qualifications are prescribed for a post, the candidature of a candidate possessing higher qualification cannot be rejected on that basis. No doubt, normal rule would be that candidate with higher qualification is deemed to fulfil the lower qualification prescribed for a post. But that higher qualification has to be in the same channel. Further, this rule will be subject to an exception. Where the prescription of a particular qualification is found to be relevant for discharging the functions of that post and at the same time, the Government is able to demonstrate that for want of the said qualification a candidate may not be suitable for the post, even if he possesses a "better" qualification but that "better" qualification has no relevance with the functions attached with the post. 5. Insofar as, grant of relaxation for appointment of teachers in Sanskrit is concerned, an aspirant for appointment in another language cannot claim similar relaxation as a matter of right. Normally, relaxation depends on various factors which cannot be looked into by the writ Court. Grant of relaxation in favour of a class of candidates is a policy decision of the Government. The plea founded on letter dated 05.08.2009 can also not be sustained, for all that has been reflected in letter dated 05.08.2009 is that the candidates having higher qualification were permitted to submit applications. This letter does not reflect that the Government has taken a conscious decision to make appointment of the candidates having higher qualification of Post-Graduate Degree in Khortha. In any event, any decision of the Government, even a decision under Article 162 of the Constitution of India cannot supersede the statutory rules [ Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 491 ]. The contention that the petitioners are better equipped and the syllabus for Post-Graduation in Khortha covers the syllabus and subjects which are taught at Graduation level, do not make them eligible for appointment. Suffice would be to record that a decision on equivalence of qualifications primarily rests with the Academic Regulator or the Executive State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun (2002) 6 SCC 252 ] . Suffice would be to record that a decision on equivalence of qualifications primarily rests with the Academic Regulator or the Executive State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun (2002) 6 SCC 252 ] . Whether the petitioners are better equipped to teach Khortha in the secondary schools as a teacher or not, cannot be assessed in the present proceeding. The judgment in "State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Shaik Mahibulla Sharief" (Civil Appeal No. 3094 of 2017) is not applicable in the facts of the case, for there is no notification issued by the Government of Jharkhand granting relaxation for candidates in Khortha language. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find merit in the writ-petition, which is dismissed.