Veena Kumari Nee Singh … v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Director Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3.Secretary, Jharkhand Academic
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (S) No. 7105 of 2012 --- Veena Kumari Nee Singh … … Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Director Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3.Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4.Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi … … Respondents ---
Legal Reasoning
this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3055 of 2011 has been clarified by the -3- Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 201 of 2012 vide order dated 15.05.2012 whereunder it has been directed that the respondents should publish the result of the candidates who have obtained more than 50% marks, still the result of the petitioner has wrongly been withheld. He has further submitted that since the petitioner has secured about 60% marks and is in the BC-I category, she is entitled for an offer of appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. 6. As against the above, Mrs. Sweta Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 has submitted that the State Government has acted on the recommendation of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and since the name of the petitioner has not been recommended for appointment, the petitioner was not offered appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. She has further submitted that in terms of the Circular issued in the year, 2003, the post of BC-I and BC-II has been amalgamated and those have been put under the OBC category. 7. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 has submitted that in the OBC category under which the petitioner would fall, the minimum cut-off marks in the subject Sanskrit was 188 whereas, the petitioner has secured only 178 marks and therefore, the petitioner's name did not find place in the merit list. He has further submitted that in the application which was submitted by the petitioner herself, the petitioner has indicated her category as OBC. Reiterating the stand taken by the State of Jharkhand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 has submitted that since only 27 posts were advertised, recommendations were made for appointment and even though the petitioner has secured more than 50% marks, it would not entitle the petitioner for an offer of appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher as her merit position was much below. Relying on the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 201 of 2012, the learned counsel appearing for the -4- respondent no. 4 has submitted that the direction to publish result given by the Hon'ble Division Bench was for those candidates who had not only crossed the minimum qualifying marks but had secured enough marks for inclusion in the merit list. The order of the Hon'ble Division Bench cannot be considered to mean that all other candidates who have secured minimum 50% marks must be put in the merit list. 8. I find substance in the contention raised on behalf of the respondents. The cut-off marks of 50% was fixed for screening candidates for preparing the merit list and therefore, merely because a candidate has secured 50% or more marks, this would not automatically bring him/her a position in the merit list and therefore, there is no need to publish name of those candidates who have not entered the merit list. 9. I find no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly it is dismissed. R. Shekhar Cp 2 (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
Arguments
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR --- For the Petitioner For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: Mrs. Sweta Singh, J.C. to A.A.G. For the Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Sanjay Piprawal, Advocate : Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate --- 07/19.11.2013 The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents for declaration of result for the post of Assistant Teacher. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the advertisement bearing no. 12/2008 was issued for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers. Since the petitioner obtained 178 marks (60% approximately) however, her name did not find place in the merit list therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed stating as under: 9. “That, it is not out of place to mention here that in year 2003, the State Government amalgamated extremely BC-I category and BC-II category in one category i.e., OBC and at the time of sending the requisition, there was no separate class, either BC-I or BC-II and as such in the Advertisement it has been mentioned as other backward class. -2- 10. That, after publication of Advertisement vide Annexure-I, several candidates submitted their application forms before the J.P.S.C. for considering their candidature for appointment against the Advertised posts. That, it would also be evidence from perusal of 11. Annexure-2 i.e, application form submitted by the Petitioner before the J.P.S.C. That she had submitted by the Petitioner before the J.P.S.C. that she had submitted her application as OBC category candidate for considering her candidature for appointment as Teacher in subject Sanskrit. 12. That, it is stated that the J.P.S.C. after receiving the application forms decided to conduct the written test examination on 09.08.2009 and accordingly Admit Cards were issued to the candidates including the Petitioner, for their appearance on 09.08.2009 in the written test examination. That, it would be evident from perusal of Annexure-3 i.e. Admit Card that she was treated as OBC category candidate by the J.P.S.C. against the post advertised for the OBC category candidates for subject Sanskrit i.e. 27 posts. 16. That, it is not out of place to mention here that the J.P.S.C. has made recommendation against 26 posts out of 27 posts as advertised. Recommendation of one candidate having Roll No. - 300018393 could not be done since he failed to submit copy of B.Ed. Certificate in the extended time i.e. 30.06.2010. 17. That, it is stated that several candidates have secured more marks than the Petitioner and rank of the Petitioner is very low in the merit list. There are other two candidates having secured 188 marks at par with last recommended candidate in this category.” 5. Mr. Santosh Kuamr Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in the advertisement, it has been specifically mentioned that the applications are being invited for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers according to the reservation and the roster, however the petitioner who belongs to BC-I category, has not been offered appointment on a wrong ground. He has further submitted that though the cut-off marks was 50% only and the order passed by the learned Single Judge of