Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 96 (JHR)

Rekha Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2024-01-25

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2024
ORDER : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR The present writ petition has been filed for quashing part of the Important Notice No. 3330 dated 25.04.2019 to the extent the same relates to the petitioner (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), issued by the Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) whereby, after analyzing the show cause reply submitted by her with respect to objection raised during document verification in the course of appointment to the post of Trained Graduated Teacher (TGT) in various subjects pursuant to Advertisement No. 21 of 2016, her candidature for the said post in the subject ‘Hindi’ has been confined to the vacancies published for TGT ‘direct recruitment’ as she did not submit the required experience certificate in terms with Clause (4)(gh) of the said notice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent- JSSC floated Advertisement No. 21/2016 for appointment of Trained Graduated Teachers of various subjects in different districts of the State of Jharkhand including Ramgarh district wherein 25% seats were reserved for those candidates who had five years’ experience as teacher in Government Primary School within the State of Jharkhand. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner submitted her online application before the respondent-JSSC against the vacancies earmarked for “working primary teachers” in Ramgarh district for ‘Hindi’ subject under unreserved category and she also claimed to be a visually handicapped candidate. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner appeared in the ‘Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Exam-2016’ and her name was shortlisted for document verification. Accordingly, she submitted the relevant documents including her work experience certificate as Para Teacher on 18.01.2019. However, the respondent-JSSC issued letter no. 1260 dated 18.01.2019 to the petitioner directing her to produce valid experience certificate of “working primary teacher” till 25.01.2019. Pursuant to the said letter, the petitioner submitted experience certificate dated 28.12.2018 issued by the ‘Headmaster, Rajkiya Madhya Vidyalaya, Sayal’, District- Ramgarh as well as experience certificate No. 50 dated 11.01.2019 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh wherein it was certified that the petitioner was appointed as para teacher in Government Middle School, Sayal, District- Ramgarh, Jharkhand on 01.04.2003 where she had been working since the date of appointment and hence, her service period as para teacher was more than five years. However, vide impugned Important Notice no. However, vide impugned Important Notice no. 3330 dated 25.04.2019, the respondent-JSSC confined the petitioner’s candidature with respect to appointment on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher for the subject ‘Hindi’ against the vacancies reserved for ‘direct recruitment’ for want of required experience certificate of “working primary teacher” as mentioned in clause 4(gh) of the said notice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondent authorities are illegally and arbitrarily making a distinction between ‘Para-Teacher’ and ‘Government Primary Teacher’ without appreciating that both are getting salary from the State Government. There was no specific bar in the Advertisement No. 21/2016 that para-teachers were not entitled to appear in the said examination against the vacancies earmarked for primary teachers. 5. Per contra, Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2, submits that as per Clause-5 (iv) of the Advertisement No. 21/2016, only those candidates who had already completed minimum five years’ service as Assistant Teachers in Government Primary School situated within the State of Jharkhand, were eligible for consideration to be appointed against 25% seats reserved for “working primary teachers”. It has been mentioned in rule 9(I) of Chapter 6 of the Jharkhand Government Secondary School Teacher and Non-teaching Staff Appointment & Service Condition Rules, 2015 that out of total vacancies informed by the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, 25% vacancies will be filled up from eligible candidates who have been working as teachers in Government Primary School for minimum five years and rest 75% vacancies will be filled up through direct recruitment. 6. It is further submitted that it was nowhere mentioned in the said advertisement that work experience as para teacher would also be considered. The aforesaid work experience certificates of para teacher submitted by the petitioner are not valid for extending the benefits of experience as primary teacher as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement and also in view of the fact that ‘Para Teacher’ is not a permanent post under the State Government. 7. Mr. Piprawall also submits that since the petitioner had failed to submit valid ‘local residential certificate’ as well as valid ‘work experience certificate’ in terms with the said advertisement, she was issued show cause notice dated 18.01.2019 asking her to produce the said documents till 25.01.2019. 7. Mr. Piprawall also submits that since the petitioner had failed to submit valid ‘local residential certificate’ as well as valid ‘work experience certificate’ in terms with the said advertisement, she was issued show cause notice dated 18.01.2019 asking her to produce the said documents till 25.01.2019. The petitioner submitted her reply on two dates i.e., on 18.01.2019 and 22.01.2019 which were not found satisfactory and as such her candidature was confined to be considered against the vacancies earmarked for Trained Graduate Teachers under ‘direct recruitment’. 8. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not been declared successful since she secured lesser marks than the last successful candidate in the subject ‘Hindi’ in unreserved category of TGT under ‘direct recruitment’. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had five years’ work experience as para teacher in government primary school within the State of Jharkhand and during document verification, she also submitted the work experience certificate before the respondent-JSSC, however, it arbitrarily rejected her candidature on the ground that she was not holding the required work experience as “working primary teacher” in government primary school of the State of Jharkhand. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC contends that holding experience certificate of para teacher could not have been considered as experience equivalent to primary teacher in government primary school and as such the petitioner’s candidature was considered under the open category. Moreover, since she obtained lesser marks than the last selected candidate of unreserved category ‘direct recruitment’, her name was not recommended for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher for the concerned subject. 12. It is evident from Advertisement No. 21/2016 that 25% posts of the advertised vacancies pertaining to recruitment of Trained Graduate Teachers were reserved for “working primary teachers”. It was provided in Clause 5(iv) of the said advertisement that teachers of government primary school within the State of Jharkhand having minimum five years’ experience would be entitled to make application against 25% reserved posts of Trained Graduate Teacher. 13. It was provided in Clause 5(iv) of the said advertisement that teachers of government primary school within the State of Jharkhand having minimum five years’ experience would be entitled to make application against 25% reserved posts of Trained Graduate Teacher. 13. Admittedly, the petitioner had experience of five years as para teacher in the government primary school and her candidature was not considered by the respondent-JSSC against 25% reserved posts for “working primary teachers” on the ground that she was not holding the work experience as stipulated under Clause 5 (iv) of Advertisement No. 21/2016. 14. Now, the question falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether work experience of the petitioner as “para teacher” can be considered as experience in terms with the concerned advertisement to appoint her on the post of “Trained Graduate Teacher” as well as whether her candidature can be considered against the 25% posts reserved for “working primary teachers” in government primary schools of the State? 15. There are two sets of teachers existing in primary schools; one is ‘regular teachers’ and another is ‘para-teachers’. Para teachers are appointed on contractual basis by the Government under the scheme - ‘Sarva Siksha Abhiyan’’ to support the regular teachers so as to maintain pupil-teacher ratio as well as to deal with the shortage of regular teachers. Though the aforesaid two categories of teachers work in the same school and perform similar duties, however they are governed by different service conditions. There is significant difference between the regular teachers and the para teachers with respect to their qualifications, conditions of appointment and job security. Regular teachers generally have higher qualifications, better job security, access to more service benefits and training opportunities than para-teachers. 16. It is well settled principle of law that the authority who has authored a document, is the best judge to interpret the same. If two interpretations of such document are possible, then the interpretation made by the author must be accepted and the courts will only interfere in this regard for preventing arbitrariness, irrationality, biasness, mala fides and perversity. 17. In the case of Mukul Kumar Tyagi Vs. If two interpretations of such document are possible, then the interpretation made by the author must be accepted and the courts will only interfere in this regard for preventing arbitrariness, irrationality, biasness, mala fides and perversity. 17. In the case of Mukul Kumar Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 86 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is the recruiting agency which has to be satisfied as to whether the claim of equivalence of qualification by a candidate is sustainable or not. The purpose and object of qualification is fixed by employer to suit or fulfil the objective of recruiting the best candidates for the job. It is the recruiting agency which is under obligation to scrutinise the qualifications of a candidate as to whether he/she is eligible and entitled to participate in the selection process. 18. The contention of the respondent-JSSC is that the word “teacher” in Clause 5(iv) of the Advertisement No. 21/2016 means ‘regular/permanent teacher’ in government primary school and not “para-teacher” and said interpretation has been uniformly followed with respect to all the similarly situated persons. The petitioner has failed to controvert the said stand of the respondent-JSSC. 19. Thus, I do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondent-JSSC in not considering the candidature of the petitioner against 25% seats reserved for the “working primary teachers” having minimum five years’ teaching experience in government primary schools. 20. So far as the consideration of the petitioner’s candidature against 75% seats to be filled by direct recruitment is concerned, the specific stand of the respondent-JSSC is that after the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P (Civil) No. 12490/2020 (Satyajit Kumar and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others), state wise merit list has been prepared and the last selected candidate in ‘Hindi’ subject under unreserved category has got 232 marks whereas the petitioner has got 210 marks and as such her name has also not been recommended for appointment against 75% vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.