Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 190 (JHR)

Shabnam v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-01-19

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. – In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Para Teacher and further to issue appropriate writ not to allow respondent no. 5 to function as Para Teacher. 2. The facts, in brief, is that pursuant to advertisement published in daily newspaper "Ranchi Express" dated 13.11.2006 inviting applications for the post of Para Teacher in different schools, the petitioner applied against vacanct position in Government Primary School, Amlatoli along with other candidates. Pursuant thereto, a general meeting was held on 16.11.2006, in which, one Farhat Parveen was selected on the post of Para Teaher, but, she did not join on the said post. It has been averred that in spite of the fact that the name of the petitioner was at serial no. 2, one male person was appointed brushing aside the criteria made in the advertisement that female candidate should be given preference. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner made representation to respondent no. 2, 3 and 4 herein, but, it did not evoke any response. It has further been averred that the petitioner even sought information under R.T.I Act, but it also did not give any fruitful result. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sole ground for denying the appointment of the petitioner, as mentioned in the counter affidavit is that she does not belong to the local residence and not from the same ward where the school is situated. In this regard, it has emphatically been submitted that in the impugned advertisement it is nowhere stated that discrimination can be made on the basis of ward and it is common that one village may comprise of more than one ward. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Clause 3 of the advertisement implicitly speaks that preference was to be given to female candidate. In the instant case, the female candidate-the petitioner, having higher qualification has not been given preference and appointment has been given to respondent no. 5 in utter violation of terms of advertisement. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Clause 3 of the advertisement implicitly speaks that preference was to be given to female candidate. In the instant case, the female candidate-the petitioner, having higher qualification has not been given preference and appointment has been given to respondent no. 5 in utter violation of terms of advertisement. It has further been submitted that from the list of candidates, as per qualification, the petitioner was at second place, hence, as per the theory of legitimate expectation the petitioner had every reason to expect and believe herself to be selected after the person who was given offer of appointment refused to join. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondentsState submitted that after denial made by said Farhat Praveen, who did not join on the post of Para Teacher, there was no number two candidate and fresh appointment process was initiated and after following due process and meeting of Aam Sabha, one Jahid Afsar, who is resident of School Cluster Area was selected as Para Teacher and he is discharging his duties since then. Furthermore, the petitioner does not belong to local area/tola, as per advertisement and only local person can be appointed on the post of para teacher, therefore, her claim that she possesses requisite and higher qualification is of no help to the petitioner. 5. Counter affidavit has also been filed by respondent no. 5, wherein it has been stated that at clause 4 of the said advertisement, it has specifically been mentioned that selection of para teacher is to be made on the basis of locality i.e. village/tola and admittedly, petitioner herein does not belong to that tola/ward whereas respondent no. 5 belongs to that particular tola/ward where the school is situated. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of record, it appears that pursuant to advertisement published in daily newspaper "Ranchi Express" dated 13.11.2006 inviting applications for the post of Para Teacher in different schools, an Aam sabha was held on 16.11.2006, in which, one Farhat Parveen was selected on the post of Para Teaher, but, she did not join on the said post. From perusal of record, it further appears that after non-joining by said Farhat Parveen, another Aam Sabha was held on 29.06.2007, in which, respondent no. 5 was selected unanimously. From perusal of record, it further appears that after non-joining by said Farhat Parveen, another Aam Sabha was held on 29.06.2007, in which, respondent no. 5 was selected unanimously. There is no shadow of doubt that the respondent no. 5 belongs to the same tola/ward where the school is situated and in this regard Clause 4 of the advertisement clearly stipulates that preference to be given to the candidate who belong to the same locality 7. As a logical sequitur to the discussions made in foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.