JUDGMENT : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the office order issued vide memo no. 2150, dated 17.07.2017 (Annexure-11) whereby his appointment has been held to be void-ab-initio and the same stood cancelled. Further prayer has been made for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits. 3. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the advertisement no. 03/2015, vacancies were floated for appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher. Petitioner being eligible, applied for the same and after having been found eligible for the said post, fulfilling all the requirement and eligibility criteria, was appointed to the post of Trained (Literature) Teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 9,300 – 34,800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/-. Thereafter, appointment letter dated 31.12.2015 was issued in respect of 119 teachers including the petitioner whose name finds place at Serial No. 9. Thereafter, petitioner submitted his joining and was sent for training. After completion of training for the period from 18.01.2016 to 24.01.2016, he was relieved for joining. Pursuant to the office order issued vide memo no. 68, dated 06.02.2016, petitioner was posted in Government Middle School, Patarhatu within Silli Block in the district of Ranchi. Though petitioner worked but salary was not paid to him. Petitioner made several representations but no heed was paid to the same. One fine morning, petitioner received a show-cause notice to submit his explanation why not his appointment be cancelled for not fulfilling the eligibility criteria as he had obtained less than 50% marks in graduation. In compliance to the said show-cause notice, petitioner submitted his explanation that he fulfills the requisite qualification and he has scored 50% marks in graduation as required in the advertisement. Not satisfied with the said explanation in terms of Rule 21(Kh) (ii)(Aa), appointment of the petitioner stood cancelled vide office order issued under Memo NO. 2150, dated 17.07.2017. Being aggrieved, petitioner has knocked door of this Court. 4. Mr. A.K.Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that the petitioner fulfills the requisite qualification for appointment as per terms and conditions enumerated in the advertisement. It has further been argued that appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled without following the procedures and adhering to cardinal principles of natural justice. 4. Mr. A.K.Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that the petitioner fulfills the requisite qualification for appointment as per terms and conditions enumerated in the advertisement. It has further been argued that appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled without following the procedures and adhering to cardinal principles of natural justice. No proper opportunity of hearing was given to him before holding the appointment as void-ab-initio. The stand of the respondents that petitioner is not fulfilling requisite qualification and criteria is not at all tenable in the eyes of law as the said observation is illegal, arbitrary and in contrary to the guidelines of Appointment Rules as also the NCTE Rules. It has further been argued that petitioner had scored 417 marks in honours in English Paper, Literature and the same cannot be said to be less than 50% marks as per requirement of the advertisement and he was selected for taking admission in B.Ed. Courses and had successfully completed the same also. He had obtained 50.8% marks in totality. Therefore, he was rightly appointed on the said post. It has further been argued that the petitioner fulfills the pre-condition of Rule 4(Kh)(21) where it was provided that the candidate should score at least 45% marks in graduation or equivalent degree and should have completed 1 years’ course of B.Ed.. Placing heavy reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Kumar Rai and others Vs. State of UP and others in Civil Appeal No. 9732 of 2017, learned counsel submits that there is no discrepancy as alleged by the respondents and in view of observation and law laid down in the aforesaid Judgment, which covers case of the petitioner, the impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be reinstated into the service with consequential benefits. 5. The respondents – State represented by Mr. Sarabhil Ahman, opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and argues that petitioner since did not fulfil the requisite qualification as per advertisement and as per the rules of Jharkhand Elementary Teachers’ Appointment Rules, 2012, amended in 2014 – 15, rightly his appointment was cancelled. It was further brought to the notice of the Court that the minimum eligibility criteria was graduate passed with 50% marks with one year B.Ed. It was further brought to the notice of the Court that the minimum eligibility criteria was graduate passed with 50% marks with one year B.Ed. Course Teachers’ Training passed and have passed the Upper Primary Teachers’ Eligibility Test conducted by the Government authorized agency i.e. JAC, which is mentioned in para 2(3)(a) and (b) of the Advertisement no. 4/2015. It has further been argued that the petitioner passed his graduation in the year 2008 and has obtained 762 marks excluding extra marks which comes to 49.16%, which is less than the required marks, which is evident from his application form submitted for appointment under the unreserved category. It was further argued that since petitioner was enrolled in the one year B.Ed. Course for the Session 2010 – 11, the order and direction issued by NCTE in the year 2009 is applicable in the case of the petitioner. Hence, having less than 50% marks in graduation he has eligibility for admission in B.Ed. Course as a reserved category candidate in his own State i.e. State of West Bengal but on the same basis he is not eligible for either taking admission in B.Ed. Course or selection as Upper Primary Teacher in the State of Jharkhand. Here he was only eligible for admission/ selection under unreserved category candidate. Since petitioner did not meet the requirement and the directions of the NCTE Regulations, 2009 for enrolment as unreserved category candidate in the one year’s B.Ed. Course in the State of Jharkhand, his qualification is not appropriate in terms of NCTE Norms, 2009 and as per Appointment Rules, 2012. Since petitioner was wrongly appointed on the post of Graduate Assistant Teacher contrary to the provisions of Clause 4(kh)(ii)(a) of the Appointment Rules, 2012 and para 3(2)(a) of the Advertisement No. 4/2015, the matter was duly placed before the Establishment Committee. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, by constituting a Committee under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Development Commissioner, verified the genuineness and validated all the appointments where it was found that petitioner was wrongly appointed to the said post of Class-VI – VII contrary to the NCTE Regulation revised in the year 2009. After following due process of law, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled holding it to be void-ab-initio as he did not fulfill the requisite qualification. Rightly his appointment was cancelled. After following due process of law, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled holding it to be void-ab-initio as he did not fulfill the requisite qualification. Rightly his appointment was cancelled. Learned counsel submits that case relied upon by the petitioner is also of no help to him as the same is distinguishable in view of facts and circumstances of the case. 6. From perusal of the documents brought on record, the arguments advanced by the parties, counter affidavit and the averments made in the writ petition, this Court is of the view that it is settled proposition of law that the candidates not fulfilling the requisite qualification at the time of appointment, are not eligible for appointment. Making wrong entry in the application form regarding fulfilling the requisite qualification cannot give him right to continue on the said post as he has been appointed upon qualifying the examination. Even if detected later on that on wrong premises, the appointment has been made since eligibility criteria as per advertisement and rules are not fulfilled, the appointment can be annulled and in the instant case rightly the same has been held to be void ab initio. 7. From the factual aspects, it has clearly been observed that the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite qualification. The Jharkhand Elementary Teachers’ Education, 2012 has been framed on the basis of NCTE Regulation issued on 13.11.2002 and 10.12.2007, either no minimum marks fixed or minimum 45% marks was required for appointment on the post of T.G. Assistant Teachers. 8. The Rules regarding appointment as per para 3(ii)(a) and (b) of the advertisement no. 4/2015 reads as follows: “(a) Graduate or its equivalent and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR Graduate or its equivalent with at least 50% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) OR Graduate or its equivalent with at least 45% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard. OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year BA/ B.Sc. Ed or B.A. Ed./B.Sc.Ed. OR Graduate or its equivalent with at least 50% marks and 1 year B.Ed. OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year BA/ B.Sc. Ed or B.A. Ed./B.Sc.Ed. OR Graduate or its equivalent with at least 50% marks and 1 year B.Ed. (Special Education) AND (b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Text (TET), to be conducted by the State of Jharkhand in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.” The Jharkhand Elementary School Teachers Appointment Rule, 2012 has been framed on the basis of NCTE Regulation as per directive of RTE Act. NCTE has revised the regulation dated 13.11.2002 and 10.12.2007 in the year 2009, whereby minimum percentage of marks for admission for B.Ed. Course was enhanced from 45% to 50% for unreserved category candidates and relaxation of 5% marks has been allowed in the case of reserved category and disable category candidates. Since petitioner was enrolled in the one year B.Ed. Course for the Session 2010 – 11, the directions issued by the NCTE in the year 2009 is applicable in his case and as such less than 50% marks in graduation, he had the eligibility for admission in the B.Ed. Course as a reserved category candidate in his own State i.e. the State of West Bengal but on the same basis he is not eligible for either taking admission in B.Ed. Course or selection as Upper Primary school Teacher in the State of Jharkhand i.e. other State. Petitioner having not fulfilling the directives of NCTE Regulation 2009 for enrolment as unreserved category candidate in the one year B.Ed. Course in the State of Jharkhand, his qualification was not appropriate as per NCTE Norms and also as per appointment Rules, 2012. He was wrongly appointed on the post of Trained Graduate Assistant Teacher which is contrary to the provisions of Clause 4(Kh)(ii)(a) of the appointment rules. 9. In view of enquiry duly conducted under the guidance of Deputy Commissioner, who also happens to be the Chairman of the District Establishment Committee after fulfilling all the requirements and adhering to the cardinal principles of natural justice, it was held that since petitioner was not having requisite qualification, whereby minimum 50% marks was required for taking admission in B.Ed. Course after 2009 for unreserved category candidate. Course after 2009 for unreserved category candidate. Since the petitioner obtained only 49.16 marks for graduation examination, he was not entitled for appointment on the post of Graduate Assistant Teachers in the State of Jharkhand as unreserved category candidate. The reliance of the petitioner on the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Kumar Rai and others Vs. State of U.P. and others in Civil Appeal No. 9732 of 2017 is also not applicable in the instant case. Petitioner was enrolled for one years B.Ed. Course for the Session 2010 – 11 and passed in the year 2011 but at the time of admission in B.Ed. Course, he had not passed P.G. Degree which was one of the eligibility criteria mentioned in the NCTE Regulation, 2009, which reads as under: “candidates with at least 50% marks either in the Bachelor’s Degree and/or in the Master’s Degree or any other qualification equivalent thereto” The appellant in the case of Neeraj Kumar Rai (Supra) had already acquired those qualification. The 2002 amendment to the 2001 Regulation provides for requirement of graduation along with B.Ed. or its equivalent without any minimum marks in graduation. The 2007 norms and standards leading to B.Ed. requires 45% marks either in bachelors or in Masters Degree or any other qualification equivalent thereto. The 2009 norms and standards leading to B.Ed. requires 50% marks either in Bachelors or in Masters degree or any other qualification equivalent thereto. Hence case of the petitioner is not similar to the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 9732 of 2017 because they had the qualifications of post graduation with 50% marks at the time when they took admission to the B.Ed. which was also relevant qualification for appointment as teacher in terms of notification dated 23.08.2010 under Section 23 of the RTE alongwith B.Ed. Pass qualification. In the NCTE Notification dated 23.08.2010, the requirement of 50% or marks in graduation was laid down on which basis the said requirement was laid down in the Jharkhand Elementary School Teachers Appointment Rule, 2012 (as amended in 2014 and 2015) and Advertisement no. 4/2015 for the appointment of Graduate Trained Teachers in unreserved category. Petitioner was not fit for appointment and rightly his appointment has been cancelled as he had acquired less than 50% marks in the graduation. His appointment was held to be void ab initio. 10. 4/2015 for the appointment of Graduate Trained Teachers in unreserved category. Petitioner was not fit for appointment and rightly his appointment has been cancelled as he had acquired less than 50% marks in the graduation. His appointment was held to be void ab initio. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others and other analogous cases reported in (2013) 11 SCC 58 held at para-21 as under: “Appellant not possessing requisite qualification on last date of submission of application but in his application representing that he possesses the same, held termination of his services was justified which was in terms of letter of offer of appointment issued to him which was provisional and conditional subject to verification of educational qualification.” Similar view was earlier expressed in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Surendra Kumar reported in (1992) 1 SCC 489 . 11. In view of aforesaid judicial pronouncements and legal proposition and also in view of the fact that petitioner did not fulfill the requisite qualification, rightly his appointment has been held to be void ab initio. No interference is required. 12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.