Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1067 (JHR)

Premlal Hembrom v. State of Jharkhand

2020-11-10

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2020
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. 1. Heard Mr. Binod Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the cases, Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka, the learned State counsel, Mr. Sandeep Verma, the learned State counsel respectively appearing on behalf of the State and Mrs. Richa Sanchita, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Jharkhand Academic Council (JAC). 2. These writ petitions have been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent these matters have been heard. 3. A common question is involved in both the writ petitions therefore both the writ petitions are being heard together. 4. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 07.10.2016 in both the writ petitions. 5. Before this, the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 6704 of 2016 was appointed on the post of para teacher on 01.04.2005 and the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 6608 of 2016 was appointed on the post para teacher on 18.08.2003 in the district of Dhanbad. 6. The petitioners were resigned from the post of para teachers on 17.02.2015 as they were selected on the post of intermediate trained teachers in the district of Dhanbad. 7. Pursuant to the advertisement no. 10 of 2015, the petitioners were applied for the appointment as teachers for the class level 1to 5 and for the class level 6to 8. The petitioner appeared in the examinations. They have been selected and thereafter the petitioners have joined on the post of Assistant Teacher. By the impugned order dated 27.09.2016 the services of the petitioners have been terminated on the ground that the petitioners are not having the requisite marks and the certificates of graduation degree from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar is not recognised by the State of Jharkhand. 8. Mr. Binod Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned orders on the ground that in view of the Teachers Appointment Rules, 2012 the petitioners are having the requisite qualification and in spite of that, on a flimsy ground, the petitioners have been terminated from the service. 8. Mr. Binod Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned orders on the ground that in view of the Teachers Appointment Rules, 2012 the petitioners are having the requisite qualification and in spite of that, on a flimsy ground, the petitioners have been terminated from the service. He draws the attention of the Court to Rule 4(kha) and by way of referring this, he submits that the scheduled tribe candidates are required to have 40% minimum marks in the intermediate. By way of referring Rule 4(ga), he submits that there is provision that ST candidates will be provided relaxation of 5% marks. He submits that the petitioners are having the said marks. He further submits that so far Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar degree certificate even not relying on that, the petitioners are eligible for selection in view of the fact that the requisite qualification is matric, intermediate, two years teachers training with 40% of minimum marks in compulsory subjects. He submits that the petitioners are having the said qualification. He submits that by the impugned orders, the ground taken by the respondent-State that the petitioners are not having 40% marks is ridiculous. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that the petitioners are not having the said marks. Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka, the learned State counsel in one of the case relied in the case of "Sanjeev Kumar Dinker vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors." [W.P.(S) No. 4935 of 2014] which was affirmed in L.P.A No. 404 of 2015. He submits that in view of this judgment of the Division Bench, the petitioners are not entitled for appointment. 10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on perusing the Rule 4 (kha) and Rule 4(ga), it transpires that the minimum marks required for SC/ST is 40% marks. The petitioners have annexed the marks which is on the record. The petitioners have passed the matriculation examination in the year 2002 and intermediate examination in the year 2006 and 2004 respectively. They are having the matric, intermediate with 40%, teachers training and TET qualification and in terms of the advertisement and they are fulfilling the criteria. 11. The Court finds force in the argument of the learned counsel papering for the petitioners that the petitioners without even not relying on the Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar certificate, the petitioners are eligible. They are having the matric, intermediate with 40%, teachers training and TET qualification and in terms of the advertisement and they are fulfilling the criteria. 11. The Court finds force in the argument of the learned counsel papering for the petitioners that the petitioners without even not relying on the Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar certificate, the petitioners are eligible. The Government of Jharkhand has decided that the decree will not be recognised in 2015 or 2016 whereas the petitioner have obtained that degree in the year 2012. Thus, in view of that the decision of the State cannot be made retrospective and on the date of appointment the petitioners who were having Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar degree was in force. 12. The Jharkhand Academic Council (JAC) was also directed to file the counter affidavit in this case and the respondent JAC has filed the affidavit stating therein that the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 6704 of 2016 has obtained 40.22% marks. On query from the Court, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent JAC pointed out that this is the marks obtained by the petitioner on compulsory subject. She submits that vocational subject has not been considered for calculation of this per cent from the marks. In the second case i.e., W.P.(S) No. 6608 of 2016, the respondent JAC has also filed the affidavit wherein it has been stated that the petitioner in that case has obtained 41.33% marks. The respondent JAC has disclosed the same on affidavit. The Court also find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that even assuming that the petitioners are not relying on the Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar certificate, inspite of that they are eligible for appointment. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the respondent State in L.P.A. No. 404 of 2015 was passed considering that the only compulsory subjects marks were to be counted for the purpose of appointment in terms of the Rules, 2012 and in the case in hand in view of the affidavit of the respondent JAC, the petitioners are having the marks as prescribed in compulsory subject. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that for the SC/ST 44 vacancies were there whereas only 19 persons were selected. He submits that in that view of the matter, the post is still there. 13. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that for the SC/ST 44 vacancies were there whereas only 19 persons were selected. He submits that in that view of the matter, the post is still there. 13. In view of the above discussion, the impugned orders dated 07.10.2016 in both the cases are not sustainable in the eye of law. 14. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 07.10.2016 in both the cases are quashed. 15. The writ petitions being W.P.(S) No. 6704 of 2016 and W.P.(S) No. 6608 of 2016 stand allowed and disposed of. 16. I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.