The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 262 of 2017 1. Sapan Kumar Dan 2. Pradip Kumar Sah 3. Dilip Kumar Sah Versus ..… Appellants 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resource Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. The Dy. Commissioner-cum-Chairman, Education Establishment Committee, Dumka 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Dumka 6. B.N. Mandal University, Lalu Nagar, Madhepura, Bihar ..... Respondents --------- CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan --------- For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate : Mr. Kishore Kr. Singh, SC-V Mr. Krishna Prajapati, AC to SC-V --------- 11/ 03.01.2024 Heard Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, learned S.C.-V. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.03.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6244 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the claim of the writ petitioners/appellants seeking appointment to the post of Primary Teacher has been dismissed. 3. The factual aspect of the case is that an advertisement was published in Daily Newspaper ‘Hindustan’ on 29.08.2022 by Jharkhand Public Service Commission for filling up the vacant post of Primary Teachers, wherein the eligibility criteria has also been mentioned. 4. It is the case of writ petitioners/appellants that they have requisite qualification for selection to the post of Primary Teachers and accordingly they had applied and were declared successful in the result, which was
Decision
published on 13.11.2003. However, the writ petitioners have been denied the appointment on the ground that they had obtained B.Ed Degree from B.N.Mandal University, Katihar and their appointment letters were to be issued after verification of their certificates, though at the same time, according to the writ petitioners/appellants several similarly situated persons whose name figured in the merit list were given appointment letters. 5. The writ petitioners/appellants being aggrieved had moved this Court 2. in W.P.(S) No. 1785 of 2005, which was disposed of on 21.04.2005 giving liberty to the petitioners to file representation before the concerned respondent, who shall consider the claim of the petitioners and take a final decision on the said representation. Accordingly, the representations were preferred by the writ petitioners/appellants before the concerned authority, though the same had been rejected vide order dated 04.06.2005 on the ground that their certificates of B.Ed degree, which they had obtained, had been cancelled by the order of Vice Chancellor dated 19.05.2000 and 01.09.1999. The order dated 04.06.2005 was thereafter challenged by the writ petitioners/appellants in W.P.(S) No. 3707 of 2005, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to look into the matter and subject to the suitability of the writ petitioners i.e., the age limit for appointment and availability of vacancy, grant appointment to the writ petitioners on the same terms and conditions, on which one of the person namely Krishna Yadav has been appointed. 6. Accordingly, the representations were submitted by the writ petitioners before the concerned authorities and matter was placed before the District Education Establishment Committee in its meeting dated 03.07.2014, wherein it was decided that since the writ petitioners/appellants have crossed the age limit on the date of disposal of the W.P.(S) No. 3707 of 2005; as such their claim for appointment to the post of Primary Teachers be rejected. 7. One of the writ petitioners who was within the age limit as on 21.06.2013 was however issued the appointment letter pursuant to which he joined in his place of posting. So far as other writ petitioners, who were three in number are concerned, since their appointment as Assistant Teachers was rejected on account of the fact that they had crossed the age limit in spite of the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 3707 of 2005, the petitioners have once again approached this court in W.P.(S) No. 6244 of 2014 which was disposed of on 24.03.2017, which is the order impugned in the present appeal. 8. At the outset, Mr. R.N. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/appellants has submitted that so far as the appellant Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, they have already crossed the age of superannuation and so far as appellant No.2 is concerned, he is at present aged about 58 years. 9. Submissions have also been made that in the light of order dated 3. 24.03.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6244 of 2014, no consideration was made to the fact regarding the legitimacy of the B.Ed certificate issued from B.M. Mandal University, Katihar. It has also been stated that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the fact that in spite of the writ petitioners/ appellants repeatedly approaching this Court on account of the deliberate latches on the part of the concerned respondent, they had crossed the age limit, though age limit has to be considered as per the basis of the advertisement pursuant to which the appellants had been declared successful. 10. Mr. K.K. Singh learned SC-V submits that since out of the three writ petitioners/appellants, two of the writ petitioners/appellants have already crossed the age of superannuation and one of the writ petitioner is on the verge of attaining the age of superannuation, therefore, nothing survives in the present appeal. 11. It appears from the order dated 24.03.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6242 of 2014 that consideration was made to the fact that the writ petitioners/appellants have crossed the age limit. Moreover, as has been submitted by Mr. R.N. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/appellants, two of the appellants have already crossed the age of superannuation, while one of the appellants is on the verge of attaining the age of 60 years. 12. In view of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants with respect to current age of the appellants and the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge had rightly considered the claim of the writ petitioners in his order dated 24.03.2017. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, this appeal stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) JK/Pramanik