Prabha Ekka … v. 1. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi through its Secretary 2. The Examination Controller
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1008 of 2019 --- Prabha Ekka … … Petitioner Versus 1. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi through its Secretary 2. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi 3. The State of Jharkhand 4. National Council for Teacher Education, Bhopal …. … Respondents With W.P.(S) No. 911 of 2019 Devashish Bhagat --- Versus … … Petitioner 1. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi through its Chairman 2. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi 3. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. National Council for Teacher Education, Western Regional Committee through its Director, Bhopal …. … Respondents With Anil Oraon W.P.(S) No. 945 of 2019 --- … … Petitioner Versus 1. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi through its Secretary 2. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi 3. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. National Council for Teacher Education, Western Regional Committee through its Director, Bhopal …. … Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioners : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Anup Kumar Agrawal, A.C. to G.A.-IV [in W.P.(S) No. 1008 of 2019] Mr. Karan Shahdeo, A.C. to S.C.-II [in W.P.(S) No. 911 of 2019] Mr. Anshuman Kumar, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-II [in W.P.(S) No. 945 of 2019] For the Resp.-JSSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate 2 Order No. 05 Dated: 06.11.2023 W.P.(S) No. 1008 of 2019 has been filed for quashing the part of Notice No. 2602 dated 15.02.2019 (Annexure-10 to writ petition) whereas W.P.(S) Nos. 911 of 2019 and 945 of 2019 have been filed for quashing part of Notice no. 1855 dated 04.02.2019 all issued by the respondent no. 2-Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi (JSSC) whereby the claim of the petitioners for consideration of their candidatures has been rejected on the ground that they did not submit their certificates of graduation in Science/Arts/Commerce pursuant to advertisement no. 21/2016 despite the fact that they had already submitted their certificates of ‘Degree in Physical Education’ issued from the recognized institutes. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent-no. 2, vide impugned notices dated 15.02.2019 and 04.02.2019, has wrongly rejected the candidatures of the petitioners for appointment on the post of ‘Trained Graduate Teacher in Physical Education’ as it is neither practical nor possible for any candidate to obtain two graduation degrees. Since the petitioners duly possessed degree in ‘Bachelor of Physical Education (three year’s degree course)’ issued by the recognized institute, the respondent-JSSC was duty bound to consider the petitioners’ candidatures for the said post. 3. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent- JSSC, submits that the present issue has already been decided 3 by a Bench of this court vide order dated 18.04.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3081 of 2019 (Sanjeet Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) dismissing the said writ petition with observation that as per the advertisement, the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of ‘Trained Graduate Teacher in Physical Education’ was graduation degree in Science/Arts/Commerce as well as a degree in ‘Physical Education’. 4. Considering the said submission of learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC, it would be appropriate to go through the relevant paragraphs of the order dated 18.04.2022 passed in the case of Sanjeet Kumar (supra) which read as under: “5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for recruitment pursuant to Advertisement of 2016 as contained in Annexure-1 to
Decision
the writ petition. The petitioner had applied for being appointed as teacher in Physical Education, but the petitioner was not found eligible because allegedly he could not produce the required educational certificate. The learned counsel submits that for a person who is to be appointed as a teacher in Physical Education, he need not have any graduation degree of B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. etc. and therefore, the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is not in accordance with law. The learned counsel has referred to Page No.73 of the writ petition to submit that the reason for rejection of the candidature of the petitioner has been mentioned therein at Column No. 11. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer, has submitted that the advertisement is not under challenge and as per the advertisement, the required qualification was a graduation degree along with the Physical Education degree. He refers to Page 23 of the writ petition which is a part of the advertisement. The learned counsel has submitted 4 that as the petitioner does not have the required qualification as per the advertisement, the impugned action of the respondents is in accordance with law and no interference is called for in the present case. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the advertisement which is contained in Annexure-1 of the writ petition is not under challenge. As per the advertisement, the minimum qualification for appointment as a teacher in Physical Education is graduation degree as well as a degree in Physical Education. Admittedly, the petitioner had not produced the required graduation degree and accordingly, the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected. Further, this Court finds that the aforesaid requirement as per the advertisement is not under challenge in the present case. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that the petitioner does not possess the necessary educational qualification as mentioned in the advertisement itself, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned action of the respondents and accordingly, no interference is called for in the present writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.” 5. In the present cases also, the petitioners have not challenged the terms of advertisement wherein the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of ‘Trained Graduate Teacher in Physical Education’ has been mentioned as graduation degree in Science/Arts/Commerce as well as degree in ‘Physical Education’. Admittedly, the petitioners did not produce their certificates of graduation in Science/Arts/Commerce, rather they only submitted their certificates of degree in ‘Physical Education’. 6. Hence, this Court is of the view that since the petitioners did not possess the essential educational qualification as 5 mentioned in the concerned advertisement, there is no illegality in the impugned notices dated 15.02.2019 and 04.02.2019 issued by the respondent no. 2 whereby the petitioners’ candidature for the post of ‘Trained Graduate Teacher in Physical Education’ has been rejected. 7. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. 8. I.A. No. 7477 of 2022 filed in W.P.(S) No. 911 of 2019 also stands disposed of. Ritesh/ (Rajesh Shankar, J.)