Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 708 (JHR)

Mahendra Prasad Nirala v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-04-02

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT S.N. Pathak, J. – The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to consider his case for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in the district of Bokaro. 2. The petitioner is a Post- Graduate in Hindi and pursuant to Advertisement No.02/2015-16 issued by the Office of District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher for Class VI to VIII in the elementary schools, the petitioner having requisite qualification, applied for the same. Thereafter, a merit list was prepared by the office of Superintendent of Education, Bokaro and in 9th Counseling, the name of the petitioner appeared at serial No. 3 in the category of para-Teacher(BC), the petitioner asked to submit all the original certificates for verification which was duly submitted by him on 18.12.2015, but the case of the petitioner was not considered for appointment rather no offer of appointment was issued to him. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred representations before the respondents, but the same was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances. 3. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner very fairly submits that earlier when the case was taken up, this Court had directed the respondents to come out with a specific affidavit that what percentage of marks was obtained by the last selected candidate and whether the case of the petitioner falls within the zone of consideration or not. Pursuant thereto, the respondents have filed an affidavit. Admittedly, last selected candidate has obtained 58.99 per cent marks and the petitioner has obtained 58.1 per cent marks and as such, rightly the case of the petitioner was not considered but as one post is still vacant and the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered for appointment as no other candidates have approached neither this Court nor the respondents for consideration of their cases. Learned counsel further submits that suffice it would be if a direction is given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and if the petitioner is found entitled for the same, letter of appointment be issued in his favour. 4. On the other hand, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Anup Kr. Learned counsel further submits that suffice it would be if a direction is given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and if the petitioner is found entitled for the same, letter of appointment be issued in his favour. 4. On the other hand, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Anup Kr. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there may be several others candidates in the queue of waiting for their appointment, it hardly matters, whether they approached this Hon''ble Court or not. 5. Learned counsel further argues that no case is made out for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher as the petitioner has admittedly obtained less marks than the last selected candidate. Merely because the name of the petitioner was empaneled and is found in the merit list, no right has accrued to him for appointment to the said post. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that admittedly, the petitioner has obtained less marks than the last selected candidates. In view of the fair submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I hereby direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. If the petitioner prefers a fresh representation along with a copy of this order, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the seat is vacant, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 7. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled for the said benefit, the letter of appointment shall be issued to the petitioner, within a further period of three weeks. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.