1. Sudha Kinkar 2. Animesh Mondal 3. Sneha Bharati 4. Arun Kumar Mahto 5 v. …
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3944 of 2023 1. Sudha Kinkar 2. Animesh Mondal 3. Sneha Bharati 4. Arun Kumar Mahto 5. Nagendra Prasad Bharti 6. Nasrin Parween 7. Pawan Kumar Mandal 8. Pankaj Kumar Sah 9. Nirmal Murmu 10. Alexsious Hembrom Versus ….. Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Director, Primary Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi 5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Godda 7. The District Superintendent of Education, Dumka 8. The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur ….. Respondents
Legal Reasoning
----- CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C to A.A.G-III Ms. Richa Sanchita ----- For the Petitioners: For the State: For the JAC: 04/21.12.2023 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to initiate the process of recruitment for the post of Teacher for Class I to V and Class VI to VIII in the State of Jharkhand and to prepare fresh district-wise merit list, as prescribed in Clause 21 of the Jharkhand Primary Teachers Appointment Rules, 2012 [hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2012] as well as to publish fresh merit list including the names of the petitioners and to initiate fresh process of counselling for appointment on the said post. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have qualified TET Examination and they are expecting from the State authorities to prepare a fresh merit list as per the Rules, 2012, however, they have not yet prepared the same. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submits that the petitioners may be given liberty to prefer representation(s) before the cornered respondents raising the aforesaid grievances, who in turn, may be directed to take appropriate decision on the same within a time frame. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that public appointment/employment is a policy decision of the government and the Courts should be circumspect in issuing any such direction to the government. Otherwise also, the petitioners have no vested right to seek direction against the government to initiate the process of appointment only because according to them, they are qualified to be appointed on any public post. 5. I find substance in the said submission of learned counsel for the respondent-State. The matter with respect to public employment is in the domain of the executive and only because the petitioners claim to have possessed the qualification to be appointed on a particular public post does not give them vested right to seek direction upon the government that the process of appointment on a particular post should be initiated considering that the relevant rules with respect to the said appointment have already been framed. Even a candidate, who has applied for a job, does not have a legal right to insist that the recruitment process set in motion be carried to its logical end. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Pushpa Rani & Ors. reported in (2008) 9 SCC 242 has held as under:- of posts, formation ‘’37. Before parting with this aspect of the case, we consider it necessary to reiterate the settled legal position that matters relating to creation and and abolition structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation of service records of the employees fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. What steps should be taken for improving efficiency of the administration is also the preserve of the employer. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision or is patently arbitrary or is vitiated due to mala fides. The court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post be 3 filled by direct recruitment or promotion or by transfer. The court has no role in determining the methodology of recruitment or laying down the criteria of selection. It is also not open to the court to make comparative evaluation of the merit of the candidates. The court cannot suggest the manner in which the employer should structure or restructure the cadres for the purpose of improving efficiency of administration.’’ 7. In the case of Food Corpn. of India & Ors. Vs. Bhanu Lodh & Ors. reported in (2005) 3 SCC 618, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: ‘’14. Merely because vacancies are notified, the State is not obliged to fill up all the vacancies unless there is some provision to the contrary in the applicable rules. However, there is no doubt that the decision not to fill up the vacancies, has to be taken bona fide and must pass the test of reasonableness so as not to fail on the touchstone of Article 14 of if the vacancies are the Constitution. Again, proposed to be filled, then the State is obliged to fill them in accordance with merit from the list of the selected candidates. Whether to fill up or not to fill up a post, is a policy decision, and unless it is infected with the vice of arbitrariness, there is no scope for interference in judicial review. (See in this Orissa v. Haraprasad connection Govt. Das [(1998) of and State 1 Orissa v. Bhikari Charan Khuntia [(2003) 10 SCC 144].’’ of SCC 487] 8. Thus, matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation of service records of the employees fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. It is the policy decision of the Government to decide as to whether a vacancy is to be fill up or not and the court’s interference in such matter should be minimal. Even after the vacancy is advertised, the State is not obliged to fill up all the vacancies. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any reason to entertain the present writ petition and the same being a misconceived one is accordingly dismissed. Satish/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)