Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1884 (JHR)

Sitaram Yadav v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-08-16

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
ORDER S.N. Pathak, J. - Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for his appointment as Assistant Teacher for Class-VI to VIII on the ground that petitioner has obtained more marks than one Pankaj Kushwaha, who has obtained 63.7306 marks, has been appointed as an Assistant Teacher in para category. 3. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. In View of an advertisement issued for appointment of Assistant Teacher for Class-VI to VIII for Sahibganj district. Petitioner having qualification of 10th (Matric) pass, 1St class in Intermediate, 1St class in graduation and also 1St class in B.Ed., applied for the same under B.C. Category for the post of TGT Para Arts and all the certificates of the petitioner are recognized and degrees obtained by him are also valid degrees. It is the case of the petitioner that in View of the requisite qualification possessed by the petitioner, he was appointed as a Para Teacher in UMMS Arjuna in the month of March, 2010 and worked on the said post with full satisfaction of the respondents. Petitioner also appeared in the Teachers'' Eligibility Test, 2012 for Class VI to VIII and secured 64% marks and also falls within the category of BC quota and as such, he submitted the required certificates i.e. residential certificate along with his caste certificate issued by the Office of S.D.O. Deoghar. After proper scrutiny, the Screening Committee published the name of the petitioner in the merit list and petitioner''s marks was shown as 63.8655. It is specific case of the petitioner that in the 9th counseling, the merit list was abandoned and one Pankaj Kushwaha, who also belongs to BC category and has obtained 63.7306 marks, was called for counseling and thereafter, appointed to the said post ignoring the fact that petitioner has obtained 63.8655 marks, which is higher than that of said Pankaj Kushwaha. As the petitioner was discriminated despite having more marks than Pankaj Kushwaha, the petitioner represented before the respondent-authorities against the said discrimination but no heed was paid to his representation and as such, petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Hon''ble Court. 4. Mr. As the petitioner was discriminated despite having more marks than Pankaj Kushwaha, the petitioner represented before the respondent-authorities against the said discrimination but no heed was paid to his representation and as such, petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Hon''ble Court. 4. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner very fairly submits that though the petitioner applied for the Assistant Teacher for Class-I to V in the Sahebganj district and was also selected but he did not join the said post and waited for the final selection as an Assistant Teacher for Class-VI to VIII in Sahebganj district. Mr. Rahul Kumar further argues that there was no occasion for the respondents to appoint Pankaj Kushwaha and discriminate the petitioner, as the petitioner has obtained more marks than the said Pankaj Kushwaha. Learned counsel further argued that it is a clear-cut case of hostile discrimination, where person having less marks has been considered and appointed and the petitioner having more marks than the last selected candidate, has been deprived of his legitimate right. Learned counsel further demonstrate and draws the attention of the Court towards Annexures-7 and 8 of the writ petition, where marks have been reflected in the documents, which shows that Pankaj Kushwaha has obtained 63.7306 marks whereas, petitioner has obtained 63.8655. Learned counsel accordingly submits that in View of the marks obtained by the petitioner, a direction be given to the respondent-authorities to consider the same and issue letter of appointment to the petitioner for the post of Assistant Teacher Class-VI to VIII 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Suman Kumar Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that as per the calculation, which has been shown in the Supplementary Counter-Affidavit at Para-ll, the last selected candidate, Pankaj Kushwaha, has obtained 63.7306 marks whereas, the petitioner has obtained 61.8645 marks and as such, the case of the petitioner was rightly not considered. Mr. Ghosh further argues that even if it is considered for a moment that petitioner has obtained more marks than the last selected candidate, his candidature was not considered in the light of the fact that he has already been selected and appointment to the post of Intermediate Trained Assistant Teacher for Class-I to V in Para Category. 6. Mr. Ghosh further argues that even if it is considered for a moment that petitioner has obtained more marks than the last selected candidate, his candidature was not considered in the light of the fact that he has already been selected and appointment to the post of Intermediate Trained Assistant Teacher for Class-I to V in Para Category. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondents that petitioner has obtained 61.8645 marks which is lesser than one Pankaj Kushwaha, who has obtained 63.7306 marks is misconceived. In para-11 of the supplementary counter-affidavit the respondents have themselves calculated the marks of the petitioner as well as Pankaj Kushwaha wherein it has been clearly mentioned that petitioner has obtained 63.8645 marks after giving consideration to the marks obtained by him in TET Examination. As such, submission of the learned counsel is contrary to what has been mentioned in para-11 of the supplementary counter-affidavit. In View of the fact that petitioner has obtained more marks than one Pankaj Kushwaha, who has already been selected, there is no occasion for the respondents in not issuing the offer of appointment in favour of the petitioner. Admittedly, it is a case of hostile discrimination. 7. Further, Mr. Binod Singh, learned standing counsel has given his valuable assistance to the Court and submitted that as per Rule-21 of the Teachers'' Appointment Rules, the calculation as shown in para-ll of the supplementary counter-affidavit is fully justified, as the respondents have taken care of the Rules while making such calculation. 8. In View of valuation assistance given by Mr. Binod Singh also, the case of the petitioner needs consideration and falls within the zone of consideration. 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules and guidelines, I hereby direct the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman of the Selection Committee (respondent No. 2) to consider the case of the petitioner for issuance of letter of appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher for Class- VI to VIII, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 10. Resultantly, writ petition stands allowed.