Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1206 (JHR)

Sabita Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2018-06-13

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and to appoint her on the post of Graduate Trained Language Teacher (Class-VI to VIII) in the Govt. Middle School within Ranchi district as candidates having less marks than the petitioner have already been appointed. 3. The facts of the case in short is that the petitioner having the requisite qualifications, was selected as para-teacher by the Gram Siksha Samiti in its proceeding dated 26.02.2012 and consequently, she started working as para-teacher in Govt. Middle School, Rajendra Ashram, Bundu District, Ranchi w.e.f. 12.12.2013. The certificate in this regard has also been issued by the joint signature of the Block Education Extension Officer, Ranchi and the President/Secretary, School Managing Committee of the said School. Meanwhile, an advertisement being Advt. No. 4/2015 was issued from the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi for making appointment on the post of Graduate Trained Teacher. In the said advertisement, number of vacant posts for Graduate Trained Teacher (Language) was also given category-wise, wherein a total of 139 vacancies were advertised, out of which 70 vacancies have been shown for unreserved category. Among the said vacancies, 35 vacancies have been shown reserved for para-teachers and 18 vacancies were reserved for female candidates. The petitioner has qualified the Teachers’ Eligibility Test, 2012 held in the month of April, 2013 and obtained 56.67% marks which is evident from the certificate dated 28th May, 2013 issued in her favour. The petitioner having the requisite qualification and having passed the TET examination had applied against the said advertisement. The respondents, after scrutinizing the documents submitted by the candidates, placed the petitioner’s name at Sl. No. 134 in general provisional merit list after 1st counseling. The petitioner has obtained overall 55.316 merit point and it is relevant to mention that she belongs to category ‘Para’ under MBC category female but her selection has not been made arbitrarily by the respondents and she has not been given appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher (Class-VI to VIII). It is the specific case of the petitioner that one Jayanti Devi, whose name appears at Sl. It is the specific case of the petitioner that one Jayanti Devi, whose name appears at Sl. No. 141 and who falls under unreserved Para category and has obtained merit point 54.835, has been selected by the respondents. Besides that, one Rashmi Kumari Mishra, whose name appears at Sl. No. 145 of the said merit list and has obtained 54.722 merit point and who also belongs to the same category as of petitioner, has been selected/ appointed by the respondents for the aforesaid post and the petitioner despite being obtained more overall merits point/grand marks, has arbitrarily been discriminated as her selection has not yet been made. The respondents have also not given any reasons for not making selection/appointment of the petitioner despite the fact that the petitioner has obtained more marks than the aforesaid two persons. Having no option, the petitioner made representation dated 11.03.2016 before the respondent-authorities, however, the respondents did not pay any heed on the request made by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Hon’ble Court for redressal of her grievances. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled to be selected and appointed on the post of Graduate Trained Language Teacher in the Govt. Middle School (Class-6 to 8) within Ranchi district of Jharkhand State. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents are bound to appoint the petitioner on the said post in view of the fact that the similarly situated candidates, who got less gross marks than the petitioner, have been selected/ appointed in the different Govt. Middle Schools. The action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner is against the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submits that when a candidate having less gross marks has already been selected and appointed, the respondents cannot deny the selection and appointment of the petitioner. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the petitioner and by drawing the attention of the Court towards paras-8 and 9 of the counter-affidavit, argues that Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rule, 2015, laid down the conditions to be fulfilled by interested candidates for being considered for such recruitment. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the petitioner and by drawing the attention of the Court towards paras-8 and 9 of the counter-affidavit, argues that Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rule, 2015, laid down the conditions to be fulfilled by interested candidates for being considered for such recruitment. As per clause-13 of the advertisement, it is mandatory provision that 50% of the total post shall be filled-up from the candidates who has working experience as para teacher for two or more years without any break as on 1st August of the date of the calendar year in which advertisement is published. Learned counsel for the respondents argues that the petitioner has joined as para-teacher on 12.12.2013 and the advertisement was published on 05.07.2015 and last date of submitting the application form was 05.08.2015. Since, the petitioner had joined as para-teacher on 12.12.2013, she did not fulfill the mandatory provisions of two years of regular/continuous/uninterrupted service as para teacher as on date of submitting her application form and as such, petitioner had not fulfilled the required eligibility criteria. Learned counsel accordingly submits that rightly the case of the petitioner was not considered for her appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher (Class-VI to VIII). 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference. In clause-13 of the advertisement published for appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher (Class-VI to VIII), there is a mandatory provision that 50% of the total post shall be filled-up from the candidates who has working experience of two or more years without break as para teacher as on 1st August of the date of the calendar year in which advertisement is published. In the present case, the petitioner herself has admitted in para-7 of the writ petition that she joined as a para-teacher on 12.12.2013 and the last date for submitting the application form was 05.08.2015 and as such, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has not completed two years of continuous/ uninterrupted service as para-teacher and rightly, her case was not considered by the respondents. 7. Resultantly, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.