The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.3221 of 2023 1. Rajendra Kumar Saw, aged about 35 years, S/o Bhatoo Saw, R/o vill- Chandwara, P.O.+ P.S.- Chandwara, Dist- Koderma 2. Shanti Kumari, aged about- 38 years, C/o Yogesh Chandra Ram, R/o 338A, Mohlichuwan, P.O.+ P.S.- Giridih, Dist.- Giridih 3. Kumari Ratna, aged about 37 years, W/o Ajay Kumar, R/o- Salaidih Kala, P.O.- Gando, P.S.- Birni, Dist.- Giridih 4. Nitu Kumari, aged about 35 years, C/o Sudhir Kumar, R/o- Vill- Pandeydih, P.O.- Sirsia, P.S.- Giridih, Dist.- Giridih 5. Rubi Kumari, aged about 42 years, W/o Ravindra Poddar, R/o- Vill- Sihodih, P.O.- Sirsiya, P.S.- Giridih, Dist.- Giridih 6. Sarswati Kumari, aged about 34 years, W/o Narayan, R/o- Chilga, P.O.+ P.S.- Giridih, Dist.- Giridih Versus … … Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Telephone Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi- 04, PO & PS- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 2. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Telephone Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi-4, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 3. The Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC), Ranchi, Kalinagar, Chaibagan, Namkom, P.O. & P.S.- Namkom, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC), Ranchi, Kalinagar, Chaibagan, Namkom, P.O. & P.S.- Namkom, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC), Ranchi, Kalinagar, Chaibagan, Namkom, P.O. & P.S.- Namkom, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand 6. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Personnel Administrative Reform and Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.- Dhurwa, District - Ranchi, 834004. … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners For the Resp-State For the Resp.- JSSC
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Prem Mardi, Advocate : Mr. Priyadarshi, GP-VI : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate : Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate --- 07/20.03.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: 2 “I. To direct the Respondent Authorities i.e Respondent No. 3 & 4 to consider the petitioners in the Merit List and appoint them in accordance with Law in connection with Advertisement No. 21/2016 dated 28.12.2016 and 04.02.2017 (Amended) respectively for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers in Government Secondary Schools (High School) CGTTCE 2016 on the basis of marks obtained by them equally or more than those 425 candidates in their respective subjects and respective categories who have been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 4038/2022 Contempt petition (civil) no 612/22. AND II. Further be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities i.e Respondent No. 3 & 4 to appoint and accommodate the petitioners on the basis of parity with those candidates who have been considered in the sanctioned post of Trained Graduate Teachers (CGTTCE-2016) in respect of Advt No 21/2016 by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Civil Appeal No. 4038/2022 Judgement dated 02.08.2022 and Contempt petition (civil) no 612/22 vide order date 15.12.2022 in its true spirit. AND/OR III. Further be pleased to grant liberty to the petitioners to file a Representation or an Application before the State Authorities regarding their stand for their appointment for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers in CGTTCE-2016 and the same shall be considered by the State Authorities i.e. Respondent No. 3 & 4 in accordance with Law.” Arguments of the Petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to paragraphs
Decision
18 and 19 of the writ petition to submit that the case of the petitioners may be considered on parity with respect to 425 candidates who have been benefited by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4038 of 2022 read with order passed in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 612 of 2022. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners have obtained more marks than those 425 candidates to whom relief has been granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Arguments of the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that no relief as prayed for by the petitioners be granted by this Court. He has also submitted that the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court were specific with respect to 425 candidates who were original writ petitioners before the High Court and for those in whose favour subsequently, some orders are passed by the High Court. He has also submitted that a specific order has been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that no contrary order be passed by the High Court. 3 5. The learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the order dated 28th February 2024 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6224 of 2023 (Sangita Kumari Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others) and also the order dated 21st February 2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5166 of 2023 (Bibek Mahato and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others). He submits that similar order may be passed in this case also. Findings of this court. 6. In Civil Appeal No.4038 of 2022 (Satyajit Kumar and others vs. State of Jharkhand and others) and other analogous cases and also the order dated 15.12.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (C) No.612/2022 (Soni Kumari VS. K Ravi Kumar & Ors.) in connection with the same recruitment process a direction was issued to complete the entire recruitment process within a period of three months from the date of the order. 7. This Court finds that further counselling was directed under the order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyajit Kumar (supra) and subsequent order dated 15.12.2022 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No.612/2022 (supra). 8. In paragraph 26.3 of the judgment in the case of Satyajit Kumar (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has rejected the plea that the judgment be given prospective effect after recording the fact that the petitioners of the said case were always vigilant and the proceedings right from the beginning was given wide publicity through notices published through newspapers by the orders of the High Court so that interested persons could intervene and consequently interested persons had intervened and their interventions were allowed. Paragraph 26.3 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under: - "26.3 In the present case, impugned Notification/Order is of the year 2016 The TGT recruitment process was initiated vide advertisement dated 28.12.2016 as modified on 04.02.2017 and same came to be challenged during the pendency of the recruitment process in the year 2017 itself it is also required to be noted that by order dated 21.2.2019 the Division Bench of the High Court directed that notice be published in the daily newspapers having wide circulation about institution of the wit petition so that the person interested may intervene in the writ petition. Pursuant to applications/intervener interlocutory such applications came to be filed, which came to be allowed by the High Court. Thereafter, by order dated 18.09.2019, taking into several notice, 4 consideration the question of Constitutional importance involved in the matters, the Division Bench of the High Court referred the matter to be decided by a Larger Bench. By the same order dated 18.09.2019, the High Court stayed the further implementation and operation of the impugned Notification No.5938 and Order No 5939 dated 14/2016 subject to the appointments already made, if any Thus, from the aforesaid it can be seen that the original writ petitioners are always vigilant and diligent and approached the High Court at the first available opportunity. Their valuable right for consideration of their cases for appointment in the Scheduled Districts/Areas have been taken away. They have been successful before the High Court Therefore, in the facts and circumstance of the case, the decision relied upon on behalf of the appellants to make impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court prospectively shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer on behalf of the appellants herein to make the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court applicable prospectively, deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.” 9. From the perusal of the writ petition it is apparent that the petitioners were not a party in the batch of writ petitions which was disposed of by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1387 of 2017 (Soni Kumari versus State and other analogous cases) and the petitioners never intervened in the said writ proceedings in spite of wide publicity of the pending litigation. Further, the petitioners do not have any favorable order from the high court in their favour and they have moved this court for the first time through the present wit petition in connection with the selection process involved in the present case. 10. The directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in connection with the same advertisement and the selection process vide order dated 15.12.2022 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No.612/2022 (supra) is quoted as under: “Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties including the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration that out of total 17,786 posts of Teachers notified for which the applications were invited, still number of posts of Teachers in the State both in Scheduled and non-Scheduled areas have remained vacant and taking into consideration the fact that earlier though there was no stay order with respect to those candidates who applied for the non-Scheduled district only, however, the further recruitment was not undertaken in view of the pending litigation and with a view to see that the applications are already invited and the appointments on the remaining vacant posts are to be made on merits considering the State wise merit list and with a view to see that the 5 appointments are made subject wise and the students may not suffer due to pending litigation and due to non-filing up of the posts of Teachers, the State Government is permitted to complete the entire recruitment process within a period of three months from today without fail. We pass further following order in furtherance of our earlier judgment and order dated 02.08.2022 as well as subsequent order dated 02.12.2022, as under – 1. that the State shall prepare merit list state-wise pursuant to the applications already invited; 2. that the candidates who already applied for scheduled area and they were not offered appointments in the scheduled area in view of earlier notification which has been struck down, they may be adjusted as per the earlier judgment and order dated 02.08.2022; 3. thereafter, the appointment to be made with respect to 425 candidates who were the original writ petitioners before the High Court as well as in whose favour subsequently some orders are passed by the High Court; 4. that thereafter the remaining vacant posts meant for direct recruitment (75%) shall be filled in absolutely on the basis of merit as per the state wise merit list and subject wise and after following due procedure as required, namely, counseling etc.; 5. thereafter, so far as the posts remain vacant meant for promotion (25%) are concerned, the same may be filled in by operating the State wise merit list in accordance with law. Meaning thereby, if any candidate for the promotional quota is not available, in that case the remaining vacancies be filled in according to proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules, 2015. However, it is made clear that the merit list be operated and the appointments be made restricted to the total vacancies advertised/notified, i.e., 17,786 posts only. It is also made clear that High Court shall not pass any contrary order with respect to the recruitment in question. As the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s), who have filed the contempt petitions are satisfied, the Contempt Petitions stand closed.” (emphasis supplied) 11. Thus in furtherance of the earlier judgment and order dated 02.08.2022 passed in the case of Satyajit Kumar (supra) as well as subsequent order dated 02.12.2022 and 15.12.2022 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No.612/2022 (supra) arising out of the same selection process a direction was issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the entire process was to be completed in 03 months from the date of the order in terms of the said orders ; Further, there was a clear direction by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the High Court shall not pass any contrary order with respect to the recruitment in question. 12. The fact remains that the petitioners were not amongst the 425 candidates who were the original writ petitioners before the High Court in the case of Soni Kumari (supra) nor they have any 6 subsequent favourable order passed by the High Court, rather the petitioners have moved this court for the first time after passing of the aforesaid orders by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The persons who were amongst the 425 candidates who were the original writ petitioners before the High Court in the case of Soni Kumari (supra) or those who have any subsequent favourable order passed by the High Court do not stand on the same footing as compared to the petitioners who have moved the court for the first time through this writ petition. This Court is of the considered view that if the relief as prayed for by the petitioners is granted, the same would amount to extending the period prescribed and other directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This Court is of the considered view that any direction by this Court to consider the candidature of the petitioners on account of one or the other reason would amount to interfering with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 13. Other writ petitions arising out of the same selection process have been dismissed vide order dated 28th February 2024 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6224 of 2023 (Sangita Kumari Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others) and also the order dated 21st February 2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5166 of 2023 (Bibek Mahato and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others). This court finds no reasons to take a different view. 14. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. 15. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)