Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1470 (JHR)

Sushanta Kumar Rath v. State of Jharkhand

2023-12-14

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : Rajesh Shankar, J. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to declare the petitioner successful in the Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Examination-2016 (Advertisement No. 21/2016) held for the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in the subject-‘Biology & Chemistry’ as after being declared successful in the ‘Mains’ of the said examination though the petitioner was called for certificates verification, yet he was not shown selected in the final result issued on 23.04.2019 with respect to Seraikella-Kharsawan district. The petitioner has also prayed for directing the concerned respondents to rectify the mistake occurred in the final result of the aforesaid examination as roll number of a candidate earlier declared in the list of shortlisted candidates for certificates verification against the vacancies earmarked for ‘working primary teachers’ has been shown in the final list of successful candidates of the said subject against the vacancies earmarked for ‘direct recruitment’ although both are separate categories and further to direct the respondent nos. 3 to 5 to send the petitioner’s name to the respondent no. 2 so as to call him in counselling being a successful candidate. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Advertisement No. 21 of 2016 was published in the year, 2016 by the respondent-Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) for conducting ‘Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Examination, 2016’ with respect to appointment on the post of Graduate Trained Teacher showing district wise vacancies in several subjects. There were 55 vacancies in ‘Seraikella-Kharsawan’ district under ‘direct recruitment’ in the subject of ‘Biology & Chemistry’ out of which 28 posts were earmarked for the candidates of unreserved category and 18 for ‘working primary teachers’ candidates out of which 9 posts were for the candidates of unreserved category. 3. The petitioner applied for the said post in ‘Biology & Chemistry’ subject (direct recruitment) under unreserved category for the district of Seraikella-Kharsawan. He appeared in the said examination held on 19th November, 2017 and was declared successful. Subsequently, the respondent-JSSC, vide Important Notice dated 21.01.2019, published the list of candidates, who had passed the Main Examination of Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Examination, 2016, for certificates verification. In the list of ‘Biology & Chemistry’ subject, the petitioner’s roll no. He appeared in the said examination held on 19th November, 2017 and was declared successful. Subsequently, the respondent-JSSC, vide Important Notice dated 21.01.2019, published the list of candidates, who had passed the Main Examination of Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Examination, 2016, for certificates verification. In the list of ‘Biology & Chemistry’ subject, the petitioner’s roll no. i.e. 14145150911 was shown among the successful candidates of unreserved category (direct recruitment) whereas roll numbers of three candidates i.e., 14122140766, 14140148098 and 14145150978 were shown to have been included in the list of successful candidates of the said category against the vacancies earmarked for ‘working primary teachers’. The petitioner appeared before the respondent-JSSC and produced the relevant certificates. 4. It is further submitted that after completion of certificates verification, final result was published on 23.04.2019 in which roll number of a candidate shown in the previous list of ‘Biology and Chemistry’ (working teacher) i.e. roll no. 14145150978 was mentioned in the list of ‘Biology & Chemistry’ (direct recruitment) whereas petitioner’s roll number i.e., 14145150911 was not mentioned in the said list. It is quite possible that due to clerical mistake, roll number of a candidate belonging to the category of ‘working teacher’ has been mentioned in the list of ‘direct recruitment’. However, the final list was sent by the respondent-JSSC to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Khrasawan for calling the candidates in counselling. 5. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, there are 9 vacancies of unreserved category in the subject of ‘Biology & Chemistry’ earmarked for ‘working primary teachers’ for which only two candidates have been selected and roll number of a candidate i.e. roll no.-14145150978, which was earlier mentioned in the list of shortlisted candidates for certificates verification against the vacancies earmarked for ‘working primary teachers’, has erroneously been included in the final result of 28 candidates declared under unreserved category in the subject ‘Biology & Chemistry’ (direct recruitment). As such, the roll number of the said candidate included in the list of ‘direct recruitment’ (unreserved category) should be shifted in the list of ‘working primary teacher’ (unreserved category) and the petitioner should be included in the final list/result against 28 vacancies of ‘direct recruitment’ (unreserved category). 6. On the contrary, Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 6. On the contrary, Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 to 5, refers to supplementary counter affidavit filed on 12.12.2023 wherein it has been stated that as per the materials available on the record, the petitioner submitted his application before JSSC for consideration of his candidature for appointment on the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in the subject-‘Biology & Chemistry’ under unreserved category for District-Seraikella-Kharsawn, but he was not declared successful for appointment as he secured lesser marks than the last successful candidate of the unreserved category for the said subject. 7. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that as per Notification No. 5938 dated 14.07.2016 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, only local residents of the districts namely, Sahebganj, Dumka, Jamtara, Latehar, Ranchi, Khunti, Gumla, Lohardaga, Simdega, East Singhbhum, West Singhbhum and Seraikella-Kharsawan were eligible for appointment in Class-III and Class-IV posts of the district cadre in various departments of the concerned districts for a period of 10 years from the date of issuance of the said notification. 8. It has also been stated that after starting the selection process for appointment of Graduate Trained Teacher in various subjects pursuant to the said advertisement, Notification No. 5938 dated 14.07.2016, issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand was challenged before this Court by preferring W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 (Soni Kumari Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases which were allowed by learned Full Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.09.2020 quashing the appointments made in the scheduled districts. The said order was challenged by the appointed candidates of the scheduled districts before the Honb’le Supreme Court by preferring S.L.P.(C) No. 12490 of 2020 (Civil Appeal No. 4038 of 2022) [Satyajit Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.] and other analogous appeals which were disposed of vide order dated 02.08.2022 with following observation and direction : "In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, we uphold the common impugned judgment and order passed by the High court declaring the impugned notification/order dated 14.07.2016 as unconstitutional and ultra vires Articles 14, 16(2), 16(3) and 35(a-i) of the Constitution of India. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. The present appeals challenging the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High court are hereby dismissed to the aforesaid extent. However, at the same time, the directions issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order while setting aside all the appointments made pursuant to the notification/order dated 14.07.2016 and Advertisement No. 21/2016 dated 28.12.2016 as modified on 04.12.2017 and to go in for fresh/de novo recruitment process for the schedule areas/districts is hereby modified. It is now directed that instead of fresh/de novo recruitment process by setting aside the appointments already made in the scheduled district/areas, the State shall revise the merit list based on the already published cut off marks obtained by the last selected candidates in each TGT subject against the respective categories with respect to entire State and respective candidates belonging to the non-scheduled areas and scheduled areas (Districts) shall be adjusted accordingly on the basis of individual merit of the candidates. The present directions are issued considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly considering the fact that there are already vacant posts of teachers in the State (in both Scheduled and Non-scheduled Areas). We are of the view that if the appointments already made are set aside and fresh de novo recruitment process for such posts is initiated, a number of schools in the Scheduled Areas shall be without any teacher which may ultimately affect larger public interest and education of concerned children in the Scheduled Area. Present direction is issued in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in the larger public interest of Scheduled Areas/Districts. Present appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent modifying the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court as observed hereinabove." 9. Mr. Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5 while referring to the said supplementary counter affidavit, further submits that after passing of the order dated 02.08.2022 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Contempt Petition (C) No. 612/2022 in Civil Appeal No. 4044 of 2022 (Soni Kumari & Ors. Vs. K. Ravi Kumar and Ors.) and other contempt applications were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court alleging non-compliance of the order dated 02.08.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4038/2022 and other analogous appeals. Vs. K. Ravi Kumar and Ors.) and other contempt applications were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court alleging non-compliance of the order dated 02.08.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4038/2022 and other analogous appeals. The said contempt petitions were heard by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 02.12.2022 and following order was passed : "Let the State prepare a merit list of those candidates who were actually appointed both in the Scheduled Area and Non-Scheduled Area. Thereafter, whoever a candidate in the Non-Scheduled Area is found to be more meritorious than the last selected candidate in the Scheduled Area of which he has given option, then that candidate in the Non-Scheduled area be adjusted in the concerned Scheduled Area as per his merit and the last selected candidate in that Scheduled Area has to be reshuffled and adjusted in another district, among those who are already appointed. Similarly, with respect to those original writ petitioners, who approached the High Court, their merit list also be prepared by the State Government and they may accordingly be appointed and/or adjusted in the concerned Non-Scheduled or Scheduled District as per their merits. However, it is specifically observed that except those who did not approach the High Court, the benefit of this order shall not be given to them". 10. It is also submitted that Contempt Petition (C) No. 612/2022 and analogous cases were again heard by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.12.2022 and following order was passed : “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 petitions before the High Court as well as in whose favour subsequently some order 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. 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 thereafter, if any candidate for promotional quota is not available, in that case, the remaining vacancies be filled in accordance with proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules, 2015. However, it is made clear that 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.” 11. It is further submitted that after passing the orders dated 02.12.2022 and 15.12.2022, JSSC started the process to revise the merit list in terms with the aforesaid orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and thereafter also published list of the shortlisted candidates. Subsequently, the results were published on 27.04.2023, 01.08.2023 and 12.10.2023 and recommendations were also made on 04.05.2023, 08.08.2023 and 17.10.2023 respectively for appointment. 12. Mr. Piprawall also submits that the petitioner has secured 150 marks whereas the last successful candidate in the subject-‘Biology & Chemistry’ under ‘direct recruitment’ (unreserved category) has secured 170 marks in the revised result (published so far) on the basis of State wise merit list and as such he has not been declared successful. 13. Mr. Piprawall lastly submits that the aforesaid cut-off marks of 170 in the subject-‘Biology & Chemistry’ under ‘direct recruitment’ (unreserved category) is the marks obtained by the last selected candidate in the revised list prepared till filing of the present supplementary counter affidavit. It is, however, possible that the said cut-off marks of 170 may go further below in future in the process of filling the rest of advertised/notified vacancies whereafter few more candidates may also be considered for appointment depending upon the cut-off marks. 14. Having considered the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent nos. It is, however, possible that the said cut-off marks of 170 may go further below in future in the process of filling the rest of advertised/notified vacancies whereafter few more candidates may also be considered for appointment depending upon the cut-off marks. 14. Having considered the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent nos. 3 to 5 in their supplementary counter affidavit as well as keeping in view the submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the said respondents, it is evident that the petitioner has secured 150 marks whereas the last successful candidate in the subject-‘Biology & Chemistry’ under ‘direct recruitment’ (unreserved category) has secured 170 marks in the declared result till filing of the said supplementary counter affidavit and as such, at present, the petitioner’s claim for being appointed as Graduate Trained Teacher in the subject-‘Biology & Chemistry’ under ‘direct recruitment’ (unreserved category) pursuant to Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Examination-2016 (Advertisement No. 21 of 2016), is not tenable. It goes without saying that the candidature of the petitioner along with others will be considered depending upon the further lowering of the cut-off marks, if so happens in future. 15. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.