The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 7645 of 2023 Ajeet Kumar Singh, aged about 44 years, son of Sri Ramnet Singh, resident of Village- Hemja, P.O.- Karimandih, P.S.- Haidarnagar, District Palamau Petitioner … … -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary/Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, having office at MDI Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Town & District- Ranchi 2. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Secondary Education Directorate, MDI Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Town & District- Ranchi Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, having office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. … Respondents Namkum, Town and District- Ranchi … 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- --- For the Petitioner For the State For the Resp.-JSSC ---
Legal Reasoning
passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4936 of 2023 with W.P.(S) No. 5768 of 2023 which have been dismissed vide order dated 15.02.2024. 3 7. This Court finds that arising out of the same recruitment process i.e. Advertisement No.21 of 2016, WP(S) No. 4936 of 2023 was filed by other persons wherein a similar prayer with similar grievance was made. The said case has been dismissed vide order dated 15.02.2024. In the said case the petitioners had participated in the selection process under Advertisement No.21 of 2016; appeared in the examination held for the compulsory paper in the year; received information that their registration for JSSC Form 2017 had been successful, but they did not receive any communication/information from the respondent JSSC between December 2017 to April 2023 regarding their results of being shortlisted. It was their further case that all of a sudden in the year 2023, they came to know that eligible shortlisted candidates had been asked to go to Namkum, Ranchi for counselling and document verification whereupon on checking JSSC website, petitioner nos.1 and 2 found that vide notice dated 11.05.2023 and 30.05.2023 respectively “list of candidates shortlisted against vacancy of direct recruitment” was posted on the website by which the candidates were called for verification of the certificate/documents and the roll numbers of the petitioners were mentioned on the website and they were shortlisted candidates. The grievance of the petitioners of the said case was that due to non- communication of information to them regarding counselling and document verification held by the respondents via any mode i.e. letter, mobile/ email /phone /message, or any other manner, they could not appear before JSSC on the scheduled date and they requested for allotment of another date for counselling and verification of their documents, but no response was received from JSSC and ultimately the writ petition was filed. In the said case reference has also been made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4038 of 2022 (Satyajit Kumar and others vs. State of Jharkhand and others) and other 4 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 wherein a direction was issued to complete the entire recruitment process within a period of three months from the date of the order. The said writ petition was dismissed by recording the following findings: - "Findings of this Court 16. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the entire recruitment process relates to Advertisement No.21 of 2016; upon perusal of the advertisement, it is apparent from Clause 4 (ग) (viii) that all the information regarding examination would be made available through the website including the result. Clause 4 (ग) (viii), (ix) and (x) are quoted as under: “(viii) परी्ቌा से संबंधित सभी सूचनाएँ आयोग के वेवसाईट पर धिया जायेगा। (ix) आयोग को अपररहायय कारणो से परी्ቌा के कायय्ቅम में पररवतयन का अधिकार सुरध्ቌत रहेगा। (x) अ्ቜधथययों की जानकारी के धिए परी्ቌा के पररणाम ्ቚकाधित होने के बाि अ्ቜधथययों का अंक आयोग के वेवसाईट पर Upload होगा। ्ቚमाण पत्ों की जाँच के अवसर पर अ्ቜधथययों को परी्ቌा में ्ቚा् अंको की जानकारी नहीं िी जायेगी।” 17. It is not in dispute the entire process of publication of the advertisement, filling up of application form, downloading of admit card, publication of document verification notice, results etc. were done through the official website of the respondent-JSSC. 18. This Court finds that further counseling 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). 19. In paragraph 26.3 of the judgment in the case of Satyajit Kumar (supra) which is the operative portion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has rejected the plea that the judgment be given prospective effect after recording the fact that the petitioners were always vigilant and the proceedings right from the beginning was given wide publicity through notices published through newspapers by the orders of the intervene and High Court so their consequently interventions were allowed. Paragraph 26.3 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under:- interested persons could interested persons had intervened and that "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 5 notice, several 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 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.” 20. Thus, the pendency of the dispute arising out of the selection process involved in the present cases was well advertised and circulated and the public at large was made aware through paper publication and interested parties also intervened in the matter. It is neither the case of the petitioners that they were not aware of the pending litigation in connection with the recruitment process nor it could have been their case under the facts and circumstances of this case. 21. In the aforesaid circumstances and the given fact that the entire process of publication of the advertisement, filling up of application form, downloading of admit card, publication of document verification notice, results etc. was done through the website of the JSSC and the specific clause in the advertisement that all the communications in connection with the selection process will be through the official website, the arguments of the petitioner that they were not aware of the notice through website calling for document verification is devoid of any merits hence rejected. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is not open to the petitioners to claim ignorance of the document verification notice. This Court is of the considered view that the document verification notice was in terms of the advertisement itself. 22. 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 6 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 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) 23. It is further important to note that vide another order dated 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 and in such circumstances, the notice for document verification was published in the official website as per the advertisement and no individual notices and intimation was individually given to the candidates. Further, there was a clear direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the High Court 7 shall not pass any contrary order with respect to the recruitment in question. This Court is of the considered view that any direction by this Court to consider the candidature of the petitioner on account of one or the other reason would amount to interfering with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to complete the process within 03 months and the direction that High Court shall not pass any contrary order with respect to the recruitment in question. For this reason, also this Court is not inclined to grant the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioners in these writ petitions. in accordance with the website was certainly 24. It appears from the counter-affidavit that to comply with the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court by which a direction was issued to complete the entire recruitment process within a period of 03 months from the date of the order without fail, the candidates were called for document verification through the website. Such communication through the advertisement itself. This Court is of the considered view that merely because some communication at earlier stage of the recruitment process was received by the petitioners through email, the same does not mean that the respondents were under any legal obligation to send individual emails or make individual communication through any other mode once there was a clear stipulation in the advertisement that the communication in connection with the examination would be made through the website. Further, the respondents have also explained the time constraint about the completion of the entire exercise in terms of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also the fact stated by the respondents that no individual communication for document verification etc. was made to the candidates for completing the process in terms of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and many candidates had participated under the intimation given through the official website. 25. Given the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the considered view that communication through the website was sufficient communication in terms of the advertisement and the petitioners cannot insist that individual communication through email or post etc. was required to be made to the petitioners. The petitioners have not participated under the communication made through the website; no relief as prayed for by the petitioners can be granted by this Court. 26. 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 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and for this reason also, this Court is not inclined to pass any such order as prayed for by the petitioners in W.P.(S) No.4936 of 2023." 8. Other writ petitions arising out of the same selection process being W.P.(C) No.1522 of 2019, W.P.(S) No.975 of 2019 and W.P.(S) No.3436 of 2023 and other analogous cases have been dismissed by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide judgment dated 22.04.2019, 29.04.2019 and 22.01.2024 respectively and as already stated above, W.P.(S) No.4936 of 2023 has been dismissed vide order dated 8 15.02.2024, whose findings have already been quoted above. The present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments passed by this Court and accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition. 9. 10. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. Consequently, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. Binit (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Arguments
: Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate : Ms. Richa Sanchita, Advocate Mrs. Pinky Tewary, advocate : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate The learned counsels for the parties are present. 02/20.02.2024 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief: “(i) For a direction commanding upon the respondents, in particular respondent no.3, to conduct the document verification of the petitioner, as the petitioner has been declared successful, but since no call letter was issued/served nor the same was published in any newspaper, the petitioner could not appear on the date fixed for document verification (D.V.). (ii) To direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in the subject Mathematics and Physics and consequently issue appointment letter to the petitioner, pursuant to Advertisement 21/2016 published by respondent no.3 (Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission). (iii) During the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent- Commission be directed to keep adequate post in the subjects Mathematics and Physics vacant for the petitioner. (iv) For any other appropriate relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case as also to do conscionable justice to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondents are not following the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in letters and spirit. He has further submitted that there are unfilled posts and steps are not being taken to fill up those posts. 2 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter relates to recruitment under Advertisement No.21 of 2016. He submitted that the same was the subject of matter of challenge before this Court in the case of Soni Kumari and other analogous cases which ultimately traveled to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4038 of 2022 and Civil Appeal No.4044 of 2022 and other analogous cases. The petitioner was taking regular updates in connection with the selection process, but for almost 05 years the petitioner could not remain updated; the judgment was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.08.2022 and an intimation through the website of the respondents was published which the petitioner could not know as there was no individual communication to the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that only one opportunity was granted by the communication through the website. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer and has submitted that several orders have been passed by this Court including in W.P.(S) No.3436 of 2023, W.P.(C) No.1522 of 2019, W.P.(S) No.975 of 2019, W.P.(S) No.4936 of 2023 with W.P.(S) No.5768 of 2023 and the matter is squarely covered. The learned counsel submitted that no relief be granted to the petitioner. The learned counsel has also submitted that although there was one notification on the official website there were three opportunities given. He has also referred to the order dated 15.12.2022 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No.612/2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in connection with the same advertisement and has submitted that it was directed that the entire process be completed in 03 months from the date of the order and further there was a clear direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the High Court shall not pass any contrary order with respect to the recruitment in question. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC has submitted that the point involved in the present case is squarely covered by the order