The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2476 of 2020 1. Umesh Chandra Pandey 2. Manohar Prasad Kushwaha 3. Dinesh Kumar Tiwary 4. Vinod Kumar Singh 5. Vishnu Gond 6. Manish Kumar Pandey 7. Vinod Sen Gupta …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajyabhasa, Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Secretary, Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development Department, Ranchi. 4. The Director, Higher Education (Higher Education Directorate), Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development Department, Ranchi. 5. The Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Ranchi. 6. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, Ranchi. 7. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman, Ranchi. 8. University Grants Commission, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, New Delhi. …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK ------ For the Petitioners For the Resp-State For the Resp-JSSC For the Resp.-UGC
Legal Reasoning
------ : Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, Advocate : Mr. Manish Mishra, GA-V : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Laxman Kumar, Advocate ----- 9 / 13.09.2023 Heard the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing of the impugned letters at Annexure-7 whereby the candidatures of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Graduate Trained Teachers in Sanskrit subject pursuant to Advertisement No. 21/2016 have been rejected. After quashsment of the impugned letters, the petitioners are praying for a direction upon the respondents to consider their cases and issue appointment letters to them on the post of Graduate Trained Teachers in Sanskrit subject in Government Secondary Schools, pursuant to Advertisement No. 21/2016 2 floated by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. 3. The facts, which led to filing of the present writ petition, are that Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission floated an Advertisement No. 21/2016 for holding Combined Graduate Trained Teachers Competitive Examination- 2016 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in various subjects, including Sanskrit. Minimum educational qualification for appearing in the said examination was mentioned in Clause 4(2) of the advertisement, which stipulates that a candidate must have a bachelor’s degree from an Institution recognized by the State Government or the Central Government or the University Grants Commission with at least 45% marks in the concerned subject in which appointment has to be made. However, for SC/ST candidates, minimum 40% of marks in the concerned subject was required. The petitioners having the degree in Shastri of Sanskrit from recognized Universities applied for such appointment in the subject Sanskrit for different districts. It is the case of the petitioners that Shastri degree is equivalent to Graduate degree. Since the candidatures of the petitioners were found to be in order, admit cards were issued to appear in the examinations scheduled on 19th November, 2017 and 26th November, 2017. All the petitioners did well and they were optimistic for their selection. Final result also came to the expectation of the petitioners, whereby they were shortlisted for document verification for appointment vide letters dated 20.11.2018 and 14.12.2018. However, show cause notices, which are at Annexure-5 series, were issued to the petitioners stating therein that they have submitted the degree of Shastri in place of degree of Graduation in Sanskrit, which is not the requirement as per advertisement. Replies were submitted by the petitioners, but all in vain and finally, by the impugned notices at Annexure-7 series, the candidatures of the petitioners have been rejected, which constrained them to knock the door of this Court. 4. Mr. Aashish Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assiduously argues that the impugned rejection order is not tenable in the eyes of law on the ground that the petitioners are having the requisite qualification of Graduation strictly as per advertisement. Focusing the certificates produced by the petitioners at Annexure-2 series, learned counsel submits that the petitioners are having the degree of Shastri issued by the Institution / University duly recognized by the Central / State Government or 3 University Grants Commission. Learned counsel further submits that the degree of Shastri is equivalent to Graduation and as per the requirement of the advertisement, the petitioners having the requisite qualification, ought to have been considered for appointment on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Sanskrit subject. Learned counsel further submits that even the affidavit of University Grants Commission also supports the fate of the petitioners stating therein that the degree of Shastri is equivalent to Graduation degree. Therefore, it is not open for the respondents to reject the candidatures of the petitioners mainly on the ground that the petitioners have not obtained the B.A. degree in Sanskrit. Learned counsel further argues that even several candidates possessing the degree of Shastri have been considered and appointed on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Sanskrit subject pursuant to the advertisement in question and the case of the petitioners has been refuted illegally and arbitrarily. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Manish Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State as well as Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel representing the respondent-Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners. They submit that may be the petitioners are having the equivalent degree of graduation in Shastri, but as per the requirement of the advertisement, they should have the only degree of Graduation in Sanskrit subject and as such, their candidatures were rejected. Since the petitioners do not fulfill the minimum educational qualification as per the advertisement, their cases does not fall within the zone of consideration and therefore, rightly their candidatures have been rejected. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the records, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the writ petition. However, before delving deep into the merit of the case, it would be apposite to refer the Appointment Rules which govern the field of selection process in question. The Government of Jharkhand under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India framed ‘Jharkhand Government Secondary School Teaching and Non- Teacher Staff Appointment and Service Conditions Rules, 2015’. Rule 9 thereof provides for eligibility criterion and selection process of Trained Graduate Teacher. Sub-rule (I)(i) of Rule 9 stipulates the minimum 4 qualification for such appointment, as per which, a candidate must have the degree of Graduation with minimum 45% of marks in the concerned subject in which appointment has to be made for unreserved category and for reserved category, minimum 40% of the marks is mandatory. However, for appointment of teacher of language subject, like Sanskrit, the degree of Acharya (Literature or Grammar) awarded by a University / Institution recognized by the State Government or the Central Government, or a Post- graduation degree in Sanskrit will be mandatory. Thereafter, on requisition of vacancy, the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission floated an advertisement, being Advertisement No. 21/2016 for appointment of Trained Graduate Teachers in various subjects including Sanskrit subject. Clause 4(2) of the advertisement deals with the minimum educational qualification of the candidates. As per which, for appointment of Teacher in Sanskrit, Urdu, Arbi and Farsi subjects, a candidate must have the graduation degree with minimum 45% of marks from a recognized Institution of State Government or Central Government or University Grants Commission; Or the degree of Acharya (Literature or Grammar) for Sanskrit subject, Or Master’s degree in Sanskrit subject, with B.Ed. 7. In the present case, it is no doubt true that the petitioners are possessing the degree of Shastri with minimum 45% of marks from a recognized Institution / University. It is also no doubt true that the petitioners do not fall within the ambit of considerations because even the petitioners do no fulfill the minimum educational qualifications as per the terms and conditions of the Appointment Rules read with the stipulations made in the advertisement, in particular clause 4(2) thereof. The petitioners are having the degree of Shastri and they do not have the degree of Acharya or the Master degree in Sanskrit, which is the requirement of the advertisement. Relying on the affidavit sworn by the University Grant Commission, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Shastri degree is equivalent to Graduation degree. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is of no help to them because the requirement as per the advertisement is not the equivalent degree. Nowhere in the advertisement, it has been mentioned that even the equivalent degree of Graduation can be considered. The only requirement is that the candidate should have either Bachelor’s degree in Sanskrit, or Acharya degree in Sanskrit or Master degree in Sanskrit and no any equivalent degree. 5 8. The issue of equivalent degree fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2019) 4 JBCJ 231 (HC), wherein this Court has clearly held that equivalence of educational qualification has to be done by appropriate authority by specific order duly published prior to initiation of recruitment process. The relevant paragraph reads thus:- “29. I am in agreement with the submission on behalf of learned counsel appearing for JSSC as well as State Counsel that the nomenclature of the two courses being different there has to be difference in the nature of study and knowledge imparted in the two disciplines, course content, qualifications acquired etc. It is not open for the Court in academic matters to declare equivalence of courses as may have been advertised by the employer. Concludingly, equivalence of educational qualification is purely a technical academic matter and it has to be done by appropriate authority/expert that too by specific order duly published prior to initiation of recruitment process. 9. The ratio laid down in the case of Santosh Kumar Yadav (supra) has been affirmed upto the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indresh Kumar Mishra & Ors., Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2022) 12 SCC 42. 10. Moreover, law is well settled that any appointment has to be made as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement. No appointment can be made dehors the Rules. In this context, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85 held as under:- “29. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and is conditions of specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided in if the advertisement. However, the advertisement unless such a power the power of relaxation, 6 exercised, has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” 11. On Overall consideration, it can comfortably be said that the only degree of Shastri for appointment of Trained Graduate Teacher in subject Sanskrit pursuant to Advertisement No. 21/2016 is not sufficient. Once the educational qualification as per the advertisement i.e. the Bachelor’s degree in Sanskrit/Acharya/Master Degree in Sanskrit, which was the requirement as per the Appointment Rules coupled with advertisement is mandatory, the candidatures of petitioners having the degree of Shastri have rightly been rejected. As such, the case made out by the petitioners does not attract any interference by this Court. 12. At this stage, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that several candidates having the similar qualification of Shastri from a recognised University/ Institution have already been considered and appointed by the respondents and as such, the case of petitioners should also be considered. 13. Law is very much clear that illegality once committed cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. However, it is open for the respondents to make an enquiry and find it out as to whether any person(s) having the degree of equivalent to Graduation i.e. Shastri is / are considered and appointed. Thereafter, it is duty of the State to act against such persons(s) after following the procedure in accordance with law. 14. As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, regulations, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, no interference is warranted in the writ petition. 15. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. R.Kr. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)