Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1408 (JHR)

Shivendra Kumar v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-07-03

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT S.N. Pathak, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Class-I to V) as the petitioner has been duly selected for the district of Ramgarh but no appointment letter has been offered to him. 3. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner had passed matriculation in the year 2001 and had secured 1st division with 64% marks and completed intermediate in the year 2003 and secured 2nd division with 46.11% and also passed teachers training exams in the session of 2009-2011 securing first division having 61.99% marks. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner passed TET Examination in the year 2013 and secured 67.33% marks. Petitioner has also completed graduation in the year 2009 having 49.99% marks. Subsequently, an advertisement being Advt. No. 1/2015 was floated by the Education Department for entire State of Jharkhand for district wise for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Class I to V). As per the details of the advertisement, the persons who were appointed and working as Para Teacher were to be given weightage and his percentage were also fixed. Petitioner, being a para teacher, applied for the district of Pakur. The case of the petitioner was considered for Pakur district and he secured 59.37% marks in terms of the marks obtained in the academic qualification but he was not selected in the Pakur district. As the petitioner was not selected in the district of Pakur, he appeared in the Ramgarh district for the post of Assistant Teacher for imparting education to Class I to V. When, the case of the petitioner was not even considered in Ramgarh district, he made a representation on 25.01.2016 before the District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh for considering his case but the same was not considered. The ground for non-consideration of the case of the petitioner was that his case has already been considered and he has been selected for the district of Pakur though petitioner was never selected in the district of Pakur and wrong information was given on the official website showing that petitioner was selected. The ground for non-consideration of the case of the petitioner was that his case has already been considered and he has been selected for the district of Pakur though petitioner was never selected in the district of Pakur and wrong information was given on the official website showing that petitioner was selected. It is the specific case of the petitioner that persons having lesser marks than the petitioner has been selected and offered letter of appointment but the petitioner has been illegally denied on the ground that earlier he was selected in the district of Pakur. As the petitioner comes within the zone of consideration for appointment, he made representation before the respondent-authorities for consideration of his case for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher but the same was not considered and hence, the petitioner was constrained to move before this Court for redressal of his grievances. 4. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that admittedly the petitioner has obtained more marks than the candidates who have been selected and offered letter of appointment and though his name finds place in the merit list, illegally and arbitrarily his candidature has not been considered and no letter of appointment has been offered to him. petitioner was never selected in the district of Pakur which founds strength from Annexure-3 dated 23.01.2016, the letter issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur to District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh and the said letter is not in dispute. Mr. Arun further argues that even the ground of nonconsideration is not tenable in the eyes of law, that a para teacher cannot apply under non-para category, which also finds force from the order of the Division Bench of this Hon''ble Court. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Shekhar submits that as the petitioner had concealed the relevant facts and did not disclose that he was a para-teacher, and had applied under non-para category, as such, his candidature was cancelled on the ground of concealment of facts. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Shekhar submits that as the petitioner had concealed the relevant facts and did not disclose that he was a para-teacher, and had applied under non-para category, as such, his candidature was cancelled on the ground of concealment of facts. Learned counsel further argues that it was the requirement as per guidelines of the advertisement that a candidate has to fulfill the entire format disclosing all the details and as the same was not done by the petitioner, rightly his candidature was cancelled. Mr. Shekhar submits that there is no illegality or any infirmity in not selecting the petitioner for the post of Assistant Teacher (Class I to V). 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, the petitioner has obtained more marks than the last selected candidate in the district of Ramgarh. The averments made in para-12 of the writ petition is nowhere been disputed by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. Even there is no any whisper regarding the marks obtained by the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that petitioner being a para teacher cannot apply under non-para category is also tenable in the eyes of law. Admittedly, the petitioner has obtained more marks than the last selected candidate and as such, earlier this Court, after appreciating the factual aspects had passed an order for keeping one post vacant. Though the counselling has come to an end, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in view of order passed by the Division Bench of this Hon''ble Court. 7. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and take a decision for appointment of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a further period of three weeks. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.