Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1320 (JHR)

Praveen Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2023-11-06

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2023
ORDER : (Rajesh Shankar, J.) : The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of ‘Trained Graduate Teacher (T.G.T)’ in the subject-History & Civics pursuant to issuance of Advertisement No. 21/2016 published by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi in compliance of the letters issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand whereby online applications were invited for the said post. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for Combined Trained Graduate Teacher Competitive Examination, 2016 and appeared in the same. After the petitioner was declared successful in the written examination, his documents were also verified by the concerned authority and no question was raised with respect to his caste certificate. It is further submitted that letter no. 6196 dated 29.11.2018 (Anneuxre-3 to the writ petition) was issued by the respondent no. 5- the Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC), Ranchi to the petitioner seeking explanation with an allegation that he tried to cheat the Commission by providing false information in the online application filed by him. The final result of the petitioner was published on 05.12.2018 mentioning that he could not submit reply to the show cause notice within the stipulated time regarding caste certificate produced by him and hence, his candidature was considered under ‘unreserved’ category. After publication of the final result, the petitioner filed representation before the respondent no. 5 on 07.12.2018 for consideration of his grievance which is still pending. 3. It is also submitted that the petitioner was already issued a caste certificate dated 13.05.2009 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara but due to lack of knowledge, he mentioned in the application form about the caste certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Narayanpur on 12.02.2017. However, at the time of verification of documents, he produced both the old and the new caste certificates dated 13.05.2009 and 12.02.2017 respectively, but the concerned authority did not provide opportunity to him to explain the matter. 4. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC, submits that the petitioner failed to submit his valid caste certificate issued by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer before the last date of submission of online application form for extending the benefits of reservation in terms with the said advertisement. 4. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC, submits that the petitioner failed to submit his valid caste certificate issued by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer before the last date of submission of online application form for extending the benefits of reservation in terms with the said advertisement. As such, the benefit of reservation was not extended to him and accordingly his candidature was considered under unreserved category. 5. It is further submitted that in the case of Soni Kumari Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [W.P.(C) 1387 of 2017] and other analogous cases, learned Full Bench of this Court, vide judgement dated 21.09.2020, had quashed the appointments of TGT made in the scheduled districts of the State of Jharkhand. The said order was challenged by the appointed candidates of the scheduled districts before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide S.L.P. (Civil) No. 12490/2020 (Satyajit Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases which were disposed of vide order/judgment dated 02.08.2022 with a direction that instead of fresh/de-novo recruitment process by setting aside the appointments already made in the scheduled districts/ areas, the State shall revise the merit list based on the already published cut-off marks obtained by the last selected candidate in each TGT subject against the respective categories with respect to the entire state and the respective candidates belonging to the non-scheduled areas and scheduled areas (districts) shall be adjusted accordingly on the basis of their individual merit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the aforesaid directions were issued considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly considering the fact that there were already vacant posts of teachers in the State (in both scheduled and non-scheduled areas). It was further observed that if the appointments already made were set aside and fresh de-novo recruitment process for such posts was initiated, a number of schools in the scheduled areas would be without any teacher ultimately affecting larger public interest and education of concerned children in the scheduled areas. 6. Mr. Piprawall also submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in furtherance of earlier judgement dated 02.08.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4044 of 2022 as well as order dated 02.12.2022 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 612/2022 in Civil Appeal No.4044/2022 (Soni Kumari Vs. 6. Mr. Piprawall also submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in furtherance of earlier judgement dated 02.08.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4044 of 2022 as well as order dated 02.12.2022 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 612/2022 in Civil Appeal No.4044/2022 (Soni Kumari Vs. K. Ravi Kumar & Others), passed further order dated 15.12.2022 in the said contempt petition permitting the State Government to complete the entire recruitment process within a period of three months with following directions: “1. that the State shall prepare merit list state- wise pursuant to the applications already invited; 2. that the candidates who already applied for scheduled area and they were not offered appointments in the scheduled area in view of earlier notification which has been struck down, they may be adjusted as per the earlier judgment and order dated 02.08.2022; 3. thereafter, the appointment to be made with respect to 425 candidates who were the original writ petitioners before the High Court as well as in whose favour subsequently some orders are passed by the High Court; 4. that thereafter the remaining vacant posts meant for direct recruitment (75%) shall be filled in absolutely on the basis of merit as per the state wise merit list and subject wise and after following due procedure as required, namely, counselling etc.; 5. Thereafter, so far as the posts remain vacant meant for promotion (25%) are concerned, the same may be filled in by operating the State wise merit list in accordance with law. Meaning thereby, if any candidate for the promotional quota is not available, in that case the remaining vacancies be filled in according to proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules, 2015. However, it is made clear that the merit list be operated and the appointments be made restricted to the total vacancies advertised/notified, i.e., 17,786 posts only. It is also made clear that High Court shall not pass any contrary order with respect to the recruitment in question.” 7. It is further submitted that the respondent-JSSC thereafter started the process to revise the merit list in compliance of the order(s) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the case of the petitioner was again considered while preparing the state wise merit list and publishing the revised result for subject ‘History and Civics’. It is further submitted that the respondent-JSSC thereafter started the process to revise the merit list in compliance of the order(s) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the case of the petitioner was again considered while preparing the state wise merit list and publishing the revised result for subject ‘History and Civics’. The respondent-JSSC published the revised result on 24.4.2023 as per which the petitioner secured 240 marks whereas last successful candidate in his category secured 242 marks and as such the petitioner is not entitled to be selected under ‘EBC (Annexure-I)’ category. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on the post of TGT in subject ‘History & Civics’ under ‘EBC (Annexure-I)’ category pursuant to Advertisement No. 21/2016, however his candidature has been considered under ‘unreserved’ category by rejecting his caste certificate of ‘EBC (Annexure-I)’ category. 10. To appreciate the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the letter dated 29.11.2018 issued by the respondent no. 2 to the petitioner whereby it was alleged that at the time of submitting online application, he had claimed reservation under ‘EBC (Annexure-I)’ category by referring certificate no. JHCC/2017/102544 dated 12.02.2017, however during verification, he submitted a different caste certificate dated 26.09.2018 issued by the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara which revealed that he was not holding caste certificate of ‘EBC (Annexure-I)’ category till the last date of submission of the online application and thus, he tried to cheat the Commission by providing false information in his online application form. The petitioner was asked to show cause against the said allegation till 11.00 am of 03.12.2018. The said show cause notice was not replied by the petitioner till 03.12.2018 and as such, his candidature was considered under ‘unreserved’ category. The petitioner filed reply vide e-mail dated 04.12.2018 which was considered by the respondents, however several caste certificates dated 13.04.2010, 15.12.2012, 12.02.2017 and 26.09.2018 produced by him were not accepted being not as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement. 11. The petitioner filed reply vide e-mail dated 04.12.2018 which was considered by the respondents, however several caste certificates dated 13.04.2010, 15.12.2012, 12.02.2017 and 26.09.2018 produced by him were not accepted being not as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement. 11. I have also perused the copy of caste certificate of the petitioner dated 12.02.2017 issued by the Circle Officer, Narayanpur from which it is evident the same was issued after the date of advertisement, that too by the officer below the rank of the Sub-Divisional Officer which was not in terms with the said advertisement. As such, the said caste certificate was not considered as valid for extending benefit of reservation to the petitioner. The petitioner himself has averred that due to lack of knowledge, he mentioned the details of new caste certificate issued on 12.02.2017 and did not mention the details of old caste certificate dated 13.05.2009 in the online application form filed by him. Thus, the petitioner himself had committed mistake while filling up his online application form and as such, he is not entitled to any relief under equitable writ jurisdiction. 12. Otherwise also, the respondent- JSSC prepared the State wise revised merit list pursuant to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Satyajit Kumar (supra.) and Soni Kumari (supra.) and published the revised result of Combined Trained Graduate Teacher Competitive Examination, 2016 as per which the last selected candidate under ‘EBC (Annexure-I)’ Category secured 242 marks whereas the petitioner secured 240 marks. Thus, the claim of the petitioner is not tenable and liable to be rejected. The petitioner by way of reply affidavit dated 11.08.2023 filed in response to the supplementary counter affidavit dated 17.07.2023 of the respondent nos. 4 and 5, has stated that the last selected candidate in the Jamtara District under ‘EBC (Annexure-I)’ category in the subject of ‘History and Civics’ had secured 238 marks which is less than the petitioner. I am of the view that since the State of Jharkhand was directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to prepare State- wise merit list and in the said list, the last selected candidate under the ‘EBC (Annexure-I)’ category has secured 242 marks i.e., more than the marks secured by the petitioner, no relief can be granted to him. 13. I am of the view that since the State of Jharkhand was directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to prepare State- wise merit list and in the said list, the last selected candidate under the ‘EBC (Annexure-I)’ category has secured 242 marks i.e., more than the marks secured by the petitioner, no relief can be granted to him. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner. 14. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.