Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1345 (JHR)

Uttam Kumar Dey v. State of Jharkhand

2018-06-28

D.N.PATEL, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 2779 of 2015 vide judgment and order dated 27th June, 2016, whereby the petition preferred by this appellant was dismissed. Hence the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that a Public Advertisement was given by Jharkhand Academic Council on 21st December, 2012 (Annexure 1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) and in pursuance to this advertisement, applications were invited for Teachers Eligibility Test Examination. This appellant has preferred such application and was permitted to appear in the Teachers Eligibility Test. 3. It further appears that eligibility of the candidates has been mentioned in the said advertisement and as per Clause (Ga), only those applicants who have completed their teachers training, they can appear in the examination and those candidates from whom such Teachers Training Certificate will be demanded, they will have to deposit the same on or before the date given by the Jharkhand Academic Council. 4. It appears that the cut off date given by the Jharkhand Academic Council for presenting B. Ed Certificate is 24.05.2013, whereas, this appellant (original petitioner) has completed his B. Ed education and obtained certificate on 23rd August, 2013 and hence, his result was not declared. Thereafter, another Teachers Eligibility Test examination has also been conducted by Jharkhand Academic Council. 5. Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) has issued guidelines that those applicants who are studying Teachers Training Education, they can also appear in the Teachers Eligibility Test Examination and it is submitted by counsel for the appellant that Jharkhand State is requiring more than what is recommended by the National Council for Teachers Education. We see no substance in this contention of learned counsel for the appellant, mainly for the reason that the State has all power and authority to insist upon the candidates to submit B.Ed examination certificate on or before cutoff date given by the Jharkhand Academic Council. The candidates who have completed Teachers Training Course can always appear in the Teachers Eligibility Examination, even though they have not got B.Ed Certificate. The candidates who have completed Teachers Training Course can always appear in the Teachers Eligibility Examination, even though they have not got B.Ed Certificate. In the present case, cutoff date, given by the Jharkhand Academic Council was 24th May, 2013 and this appellant, cleared B. Ed Examination and got the certificate on 23rd August, 2013 i.e. after approximately three months of the last date on which B.Ed certificate was to be given. 6. Moreover, this appellant has not challenged in the writ application, the condition imposed in the Public Advertisement by the Jharkahnd Academic Council. Thus, after accepting the condition, as it is, and after appearing in the examination this appellant cannot challenge the said condition. 7. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam reported in (2009) 3 SCC 227 at paragraph nos. 35 and 36 as under:- "35. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar this Court held: (SCC p. 107, para 18) "18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same." 36. The matter again came up for consideration before this Bench in Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh wherein this Bench held: (SCC p. 645, para 59) "59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course the exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule." (See also H.V. Nirmala v. Karnataka State Financial Corpn.)" (Emphasis supplied) 8. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines reported in (2009) 5 SCC 515 at paragraph no. 54 thereof as under: "54. The Corporation did not violate the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The appellant having participated in the selection process along with the contesting respondents without any demur or protest cannot be allowed to turn round and question the very same process having failed to qualify for the promotion." (Emphasis supplied) 9. The Corporation did not violate the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The appellant having participated in the selection process along with the contesting respondents without any demur or protest cannot be allowed to turn round and question the very same process having failed to qualify for the promotion." (Emphasis supplied) 9. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and we see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 2779 of 2015 vide judgment and order dated 27th June, 2016. Hence, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.