The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 667 of 2023 ---------- Devashish Bhagat, aged about 30 years, son of Shri Dev Nath Bhagat, residing at Shastri Nagar, Ward No.4, Lohardagga, Post Lohardagga, Police Station Lohardagga, District Lohardagga. … … Appellant/Writ Petitioner Versus 1. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi through its Chairman officiating from Chai Bagan, Kali Nagar, Namkum, Post Namkum, Police Station Namkum, District Ranchi. 2. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi officiating from Chai Bagan, Kali Nagar, Namkum, Post Namkum, Police Station Namkum, District Ranchi. 3. The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand officiating from Project Bhawan, Post Dhurwa, Police Station Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 4. The National Council For Teacher Education, Western Regional Committee through its Director officiating from Manas Bhawan, Shyamla Hills, Post Shyamla Hills, Police Station Shyamla Hills, District Bhopal. … … Respondents/Respondents ------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Appellant For the Resp.-JSSC For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate Mrs. Satakshi, Advocate : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV ---------------------------- 05/Dated: 21st August, 2024 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.: Prayer: 1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order dated 06.11.2023 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 911 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the rejection of the candidature of the appellant-writ petitioner has been declined to be
Decision
interfered with by dismissing the writ petition. Page 1 L.P.A. No. 667 of 2023 Facts: 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated herein, read as under: An advertisement being CGTTCE-2016 was issued by the respondent authorities inviting applications for appointment on the post of Graduate Trained Teachers in all the Districts of Jharkhand including Lohardagga. It is the case of the appellant-writ petitioner that the Government of India, Ministry of Education and Youth Services had clarified by letter dated 14.12.1970 that the B.P.E. (Bachelor of Physical Education) degree holders should not be required to possess any additional B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. degree as also the degree of B.P.E. has the approval of the Central Government of India. The appellant-writ petitioner, in pursuance of the advertisement, applied for the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in Physical Education in Lohardagga under Schedule Caste Category, thereafter, the appellant-writ petitioner appeared in the written examination and was declared successful and was called for document verification. It is the case of the appellant-writ petitioner that vide notice no.1855 dated 04.02.2019 was issued to the appellant-writ petitioner cancelling his candidature on not being found eligible due to lack of educational qualification since the appellant-writ petitioner was not having Graduation degree in Science/Arts/Commerce in addition to Graduation in Physical Education. The appellant-writ petitioner, being aggrieved thereof, approached to this Court invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 911 of 2019 but the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the impugned notice dated 04.02.2019 against which the present appeal has been preferred. Page 2 L.P.A. No. 667 of 2023 3. It is, thus, evident from the facts as referred hereinabove that the appellant-writ petitioner claiming himself to be eligible for consideration of his candidature as a physical education teacher has offered his candidature for the aforesaid purpose in pursuance of the advertisement as contained in Annexure-1 being Advertisement No. 21 of 2016. As per the requirement, applications were to be submitted by one or the other candidates through on-line mode. The appellant-writ petitioner has furnished the details regarding his educational qualification. Considering the same, the candidature of the appellant-writ petitioner at the threshold was considered by the JSSC but subsequently, on scrutiny, it was found that the appellant-writ petitioner was not found eligible due to lack of educational qualification since the appellant-writ petitioner was having Graduation in Physical Education while the requirement for a candidate for the purpose of consideration of his/her candidature was Graduation in Physical Education and in addition to that of Graduation in Science / Arts / Commerce. 4. The appellant-writ petitioner, being aggrieved with such decision of the JSSC, has approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 911 of 2019. 5. The learned Single Judge, placing reliance upon the order passed in writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3081 of 2019 (Sanjeet Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.) wherein in the similar circumstances, the order has been passed declining to interfere with the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner, namely, Sanjeet Kumar, has dismissed the writ petition, which is the subject matter of the present appeal. Argument on behalf of the Appellant-Writ Petitioner: 6. Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, learned counsel assisted by Mrs. Satakshi, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has taken the following ground in assailing the impugned order by submitting that the appellant- writ petitioner is having with the requisite qualification of having Graduation in Physical Education which is the subject in which the appointment is to be made, as such, it cannot be said that the appellant- Page 3 L.P.A. No. 667 of 2023 writ petitioner was not having the educational qualification of the said subject. 7. It has been contended that so far as the requirement that a candidate should also have Graduation in Science/Arts/Commerce is concerned, the same is irrelevant by taking into consideration the fact that the appointment is to be made in the Physical Education subject in which the appellant-writ petitioner is having Graduation. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid aspect of the matter in right perspective, as such, the dismissal of the writ petitioner cannot be said to be just and proper. Argument on behalf of the Respondent – JSSC : 9. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent - JSSC has submitted by defending the impugned order raising the ground that the specific stipulation has been made in the advertisement and when the appellant-writ petitioner, with the naked eyes, has participated in the process of selection then it is not acceptable so far as the argument which has been advanced regarding the requirement that since the subject is Physical Education so only Graduation in Physical Education subject is required. 10. It has also been contended the aforesaid condition or any other condition stipulated in the advertisement, that is the exclusive domain of the recruiting agency and there cannot be any interference by the candidate on any ground whatsoever. 11. It has further been contended that the learned Single Judge has relied upon the order passed by the co-ordinate writ court in the case of Sanjeet Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., [W.P.(S) No. 3081 of 2019] wherein in the identical facts and circumstances, the writ petition had been dismissed wherein also the same advertisement was under challenge, hence the learned Single Judge in order to follow the judicial Page 4 L.P.A. No. 667 of 2023 discipline if has passed the order by dismissing the writ petition, it cannot be said to suffer from error. 12. Mr. Piprawall, learned counsel has further taken the ground that the application which was submitted by the appellant-writ petitioner although was accepted at its inception since it was submitted on-line wherein the declaration was given regarding Graduation in Arts and when on scrutiny it was found that there is no such qualification, then the candidature of the appellant-writ petitioner was rejected and while doing so, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the recruiting agency. Argument on behalf of the Respondent – State : 13. Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, learned SC-IV appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, in addition to the argument advanced on behalf of JSSC, has submitted that once the appellant-writ petitioner has participated in the process of selection, it is not available for him to question the condition stipulated in the advertisement and take the plea contrary to the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement. Analysis: 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the pleadings made on behalf of the respective parties as also the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 15. The issue which has been raised on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner that the subject on which the appointment is to be made is the Physical Education and the appellant-writ petitioner’s case is that the appellant- writ petitioner is having Graduation in the Physical Education, as such, the requirement as stipulated in the advertisement of having Graduation in Science/Arts/Commerce is not required. 16. The question of requirement by a candidate is the core issue which is to be answered in this appeal. 17. The law in this regard is well settled that a candidate is having no domain to give any suggestion of any nature so far as putting a condition in the advertisement for making selection in order to fill-up the post or Page 5 L.P.A. No. 667 of 2023 anywhere in the condition or anywhere the condition are required it is the exclusive domain of the appointing authority or the competent authority depending upon the nature of applications which is to be invited. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Gujarat and Ors. vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari and Anr., (2012) 9 SCC 545, wherein at paragraph-12, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe which is being referred as under: “12. Fixing eligibility for a particular post or even for admission to a course falls within the exclusive domain of the legislature/executive and cannot be the subject-matter of judicial review, unless found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or has been fixed without keeping in mind the nature of service, for which appointments are to be made, or has no rational nexus with the object(s) sought to be achieved by the statute. Such eligibility can be changed even for the purpose of promotion, unilaterally and the person seeking such promotion cannot raise the grievance that he should be governed only by the rules existing, when he joined service. In the matter of appointments, the authority concerned has unfettered powers so far as the procedural aspects are concerned, but it must meet the requirement of eligibility, etc. The court should therefore, refrain from interfering, unless the appointments so made, or the rejection of a candidature is found to have been done at the cost of “fair play”, “good conscience” and “equity”.” 18. Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case, the appellant-writ petitioner admittedly is having Graduation in the Physical Education. The advertisement being advertisement No.21 of 2016 contains a condition under the caption heading “Minimum Educational Qualification” making it mandatory that a candidate for the purpose of applying for the post of Physical Education Teacher is to have Graduation in Physical Education and in addition to that Graduation in Science/Arts/Commerce. 19. It is also the admitted fact that the application was to be submitted through on-line mode as has been submitted on behalf of the JSSC, as such, the appellant-writ petitioner applied on-line and his application was accepted at its inception reason being that the appellant-writ petitioner has given wrong declaration of having Graduation in Arts but subsequently it was detected on scrutiny of the application form that the appellant-writ petitioner was not having Graduation in Arts rather was having Graduation in Physical Education, hence, his candidature was decided to be rejected and accordingly, rejected on the ground that the Page 6 L.P.A. No. 667 of 2023 appellant-writ petitioner has been found not eligible to participate in the process of recruitment. 20. The appellant-writ petitioner, being aggrieved thereof, has filed the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 911 of 2019 but the learned Single Judge has also declined to interfere with the same on the principle that whatever condition has been stipulated in the advertisement that is strictly to be adhered to. 21. The learned Single Judge for the aforesaid purpose has relied upon the judgment passed by the co-ordinate learned Single Judge which was on the similar issue, as such, the writ petition was dismissed. 22. The position of law has been settled as referred hereinabove by referring the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the condition which is stipulated in the advertisement is strictly to be adhered to and there cannot be any deviation either from the recruitment rule or from terms and conditions of the advertisement. Reference may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India and Ors. reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489 as also the judgment rendered in the case of Air India Ltd. vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617. 23. The condition which has been stipulated if will be relaxed for one candidate then the same will hit the principle as stipulated in Article 14 of the Constitution of India reason being that if relaxation will be given to one candidate, then why not to others. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudullah Khan & Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 1803, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraphs-29, 30, 31 and 32 has been pleased to observe which are being referred 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 conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is Page 7 L.P.A. No. 667 of 2023 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 the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if 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. 30. A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly show that there was no power of relaxation. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in directing that the condition with regard to the submission of the disability certificate either along with the application form or before appearing in the preliminary examination could be relaxed in the case of Respondent. 31. Such a course would not be permissible as it would violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 32. In the face of such conclusions, we have little hesitation in concluding that the conclusion recorded by the High Court is contrary to the facts and materials on the record. It is settled law that there can be no relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement. Even if there is a power of relaxation in the rules, the same would still have to be specifically indicated in the advertisement. In the present case, no such rule has been brought to our notice. In such circumstances, the High Court could not have issued the impugned direction to consider the claim of Respondent 1 on the basis of identity card submitted after the selection process was over, with the publication of the select list. Conclusion: 24. This Court, after referring the aforesaid settled position of law and adverting to the impugned order as also the admitted case of the appellant-writ petitioner that the appellant-writ petitioner is not having Graduation in Science/Arts/Commerce rather he is Graduate in Physical Education only and as such, he cannot be said to be eligible for the purpose of consideration of his candidature. 25. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the aforesaid fact as also by relying upon the view already taken by the co-ordinate learned Single Judge in the case of Sanjeet Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., [W.P.(S) No. 3081 of 2019], the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner has been rejected by making specific observation that the appellant-writ petitioner did not possess the Graduation Degree in Page 8 L.P.A. No. 667 of 2023 Science/Arts/Commerce rather was having Graduation in Physical Education, as such, was not fulfilling the required educational qualification. 26. This Court, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, is of the view that the order impugned needs no interference. 27. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 28. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Saurabh/ A.F.R. Page 9 L.P.A. No. 667 of 2023