Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1255 (JHR)

Teeka Ram Gendle v. State of Jharkhand

2019-07-09

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2019
ORDER : Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Saket Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing order dated 7.7.2011 whereby the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled. 3. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to an advertisement published for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher, the petitioner applied and after going through the selection process he was declared successful and was appointed as Assistant Teacher against Hindi subject in Garhwa district in the category of Scheduled Caste. Accordingly, the District Education Officer, Garhwa vide order dated 3.8.2010 relieved the petitioner to join the school. But, all of a sudden vide order dated 07.07.2011, the services of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner is not the resident of Jharkhand and he obtained employment against the vacancy of Scheduled Caste and the certificate to that effect has been submitted by him is of State of Chhatisgarh. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not applied for against the reserved category i.e. Scheduled Caste category rather he has applied for appointment in the General Category. It has further been submitted that petitioner has not submitted any certificate in this regard. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Upadhyay, A.C to learned G.A. submits that Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha has clearly issued instruction vide memo dated 18.11.2006 that only candidates belonging to State of Jharkhand is eligible to be appointed as Government Servant in reserved category provided his Caste Certificate has been issued by the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand. In paragraph 4 of the advertisement also, it has clearly been mentioned that benefit of reservation shall be extended to only resident of Jharkhand State. So far adherence of procedure for termination of the petitioner is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in 2nd paragraph of appointment letter itself, it is clearly mentioned that petitioner's appointment is temporary and only after successful completion of period of probation, confirmation of service shall be considered. But in the case of the petitioner, his services has been terminated before the said period. But in the case of the petitioner, his services has been terminated before the said period. However, vide letter dated 26.03.2011, the petitioner was afforded with the opportunity to submit the caste certificate issued by the proper authority of State of Jharkhand, which the petitioner failed, as such there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that benefit of reservation was to be extended to only candidate who has submitted certificate issued by the competent authority of State of Jharkhand but the petitioner has submitted the certificate issued by another State even vide letter dated 26.3.2011 he was given opportunity to submit such certificate but he failed to submit the required certificate to effect that he belongs to Scheduled Caste in the State of Jharkhand. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, no case of interference is made out. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.