Back
2019 Supreme(Jhk) 749
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.N. PATHAK, J.
Santosh Kumar Yadav and another – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others – Respondents
W.P.(S).No. 4079, 4395, 4707, 4960, 6412, 6309, 5487 of 2018, 1907, 2005 of 2019
Decided On : 20-09-2019
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.N. Sahay, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Kumar Shah, Advocate, Mr. Mokhtar Ahmed, Advocate, Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate, Mr. Anshuman Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate, Mr. Ritesh Singh, Advocate Mr. Navneet Sahay, Advocate, Mr. Saurabh Narayan, Advocate, Ms. Apurva Singh, Advocate, Mr. Kirtivardhan, Advocate
For the Interveners :Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Advocate, Mr. Amritansh Vatt, Advocate, Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. H.K. Mehta, AAG, Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, GA-VI, Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, SC-VII, Mr. J.F. Toppo, SC (L & C), Mr. Nipun Bakshi, SC (Mines), Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, AC to GA-VI
For the JSSC :Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate, Mr. Tejo Mistri, Advocate, Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate.
For the UOI/UGC : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI
Headnote:
(A) Service Law—Appointment—Whether a particular qualification should be or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for State and recruiting authority, to determine—State is entrusted with authority to assess needs of its public services—Qualification for a post is a recruitment policy—State being employer, is only competent authority to prescribe a particular qualification as a condition of eligibility—It is no part of role or function of a Judicial review to expand upon ambit of prescribed qualification—Similarly equivalence of qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of power of judicial review—Exigencies of administration fall within domain of administrative decision-making—State as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require certain of job opportunities across societal structure. (Paras 25 and 26)
(B) University Law—Appointment to post of Post Graduate Trained Teacher—Selection process has to be completed strictly in terms of advertisement—Essential qualification for appointment to particular post is for employer to decide according to nature and needs of work—Employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications including any kind of preference—Nowhere in Advertisement it has been mentioned that even equivalent Degree shall be considered—Word as used in Advertisement, should be given literal meaning—Scope of judicial review in such cases is very limited and same shall not be exercised by court in a casual manner—State as an employer is entitled to prescribe qualification, as a condition of eligibility after taking into consideration nature of job, aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of qualifications, course content leading up to acquisition of qualifications—No illegality or arbitrariness in action of respondents in holding petitioners ineligible for concerned posts—Writ petitions dismissed. (Paras 21, 22, 27, 30 and 31)
JUDGMENT :
The issues involved in all the writ petitions as well as the Interlocutory Applications are same, similar or identical and as such all have been tagged and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The writ petitioners herein are of two categories. In the first category of cases relating to Advertisement No. 10 of 2017 i.e. in W.P.(S) Nos. 4079 of 2018, 4707 of 2018, 4395 of 2018, 1907 of 2019, 4960 of 2018, and 5487 of 2018, petitioners are the applicants for the post of Post Graduate Trained Teachers in the subject History whereas in the Second category of writ petitions relating to Advertisement No. 21 of 2016 i.e. W.P.(S) Nos. 6412 of 2018, 6309 of 2018 and 2005 of 2019, petitioners are the applicants for the post of Graduate Trained Teachers.
4. In the first category of writ petitions relating to Advertisement No. 10 of 2017 i.e. in W.P.(S) Nos. 4079 of 2018, 4707 of 2018, 4395 of 2018, 1907 of 2019, 4960 of 2018 and 5487 of 2018, petitioners have prayed for quashing the Show Cause Notices which have been issued by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred as J.S.S.C in short) to the Petitioners by which it has been informed that petitioners do not have Post Graduation Degree in History as mentioned in Clause-4 of the Advertisement and as such they are not eligible for consideration in view of the fact that minimum eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Post Graduate Trained Teacher in the Subject History is Post Graduate Degree with minimum 50% marks (45% for S.T and S.C candidates) in the concerned subject i.e. Post-Graduation in Subject History and Petitioners are having Post-Graduation Degree in Medieval India/Modern/Ancient History/Ancient History (Archaeology and Culture) etc. which is not valid for appointment.
5. In the Second category of writ petitions i.e. W.P.(S) Nos. 6412 of 2018 and 6309 of 2018, petitioners are the applicants for the post of Graduate Trained Teachers.
In W.P.(S) No. 6412 of 2018, the petitioners have prayed for direction upon the respondents to consider their cases for appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in pursuance to Advertisement No. 21/2016. Further prayer has been made by the petitioners to hold and declare that the Trained Graduate Teacher in Ancient History is equivalent to History and as such petitioners are entitled for issuance of appointment letters and also to declare that respondents have no power and jurisdiction to deny the appointment to the petitioners merely on the ground that they are having graduate degree in Ancient History.
In W.P.(S) No. 6309 of 2018, petitioners have prayed for quashing the Show Cause Notices which have been issued by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred as J.S.S.C in short) to the Petitioners vide Annexure-4 by which it has been informed to the Petitioners that they have no Graduation Degree in History as mentioned in Clause 4 of the Advertisement No. 21 of 2016 and as such they are not eligible for consideration in view of the fact that minimum eligibility criteria for appointment as Graduate Trained Teacher for subject History/Civics is Bachelors’ Degree with History and Political Science but having at least 45% marks (40% marks for candidates of S.C and S.T category) in one of the subjects alongwith B.Ed from a recognised Teachers’ Training or equivalent.
In W.P.(S) No. 2005 of 2019, petitioner – Sanjay Kumar has claimed that he is working as a History Teacher since 29.09.2004 in Government Primary School, Dumaria Nala, Jamtara. He has prayed for setting aside Clause-6 of the Important Information No. 6863, dated 05.12.2018, pertaining to the petitioner, issued by JSSC pursuant to Advertisement No. 21/2016 for Trained Graduate Teachers’ Competitive Examination, whereby and whereunder his candidature has been rejected/cancelled by respondent no. 5 despite having all basic requisites as published in the Ad
