The main legal point established is that employees with requisite qualifications and long-standing service should be considered for permanent absorption, in line with the principles of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to adjust the services of the petitioner against the vacant and sanctioned post of Sanskrit Teacher under the respondent no.4, which is a recognized school along with the pay scale and payment of arrear of salary with all consequential benefits.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the brief facts, as has been disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner having requisite qualification joined his services in a recognized school with effect from 13.02.1996. From the date of joining in the said school, the petitioner has been discharging his duties against the said post of Sanskrit subject as evident from Annexure-1 series. One advertisement was published by the school in question which is a minority recognized school being fully controlled by the State Government and the petitioner having requisite qualification, submitted application for being considered on the post of permanent Sanskrit Teacher. However, the petitioner also submitted representation before the respondent no.4 including the respondent nos.2 and 3 for consideration of his case for permanent absorption, since the petitioner has been working on the said post of Sanskrit subject since 13.02.1996. In spite of the representations submitted by the petitioner for adjustment/absorption/regularization on the post of permanent teacher in Sanskrit subject, in view of the vacant and sanctioned post, the petitioner left with no alternative, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the respondent authority ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for permanent absorption on the post of Sanskrit teacher, in view of long uninterrupted services rendered by the petitioner since 1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the advertisement published by the respondent no.4- St. Francis High School, Poriyahat for selection for the post of Sanskrit teacher, where the petitioner has been rendering unblemished services having the requisite qualification for more than one decade, should have been justified on the anvil of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

4. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court ( Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar & Ors. , (2015) 8 SCC 265) (Para-8), ( Sheo Narain Nagar and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. , (2018) AIR SC 233) (Para-8) and the decision rendered by this Court in W.P.(S) No.3973 of 2014 (Vishnu Kumar Bansal & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) (Para-15, 16, 19 and 20).

5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.4- St. Francis High School, Poriyahat, wherein it has been submitted that the respondent no.4 is a minority school duly recognized by the Government of Jharkhand and there are certain sanctioned posts for which the Government pays salary and other emoluments. It is stated that any appointment on such sanctioned posts made after following the procedure as fixed by the Government which includes adherence to right to equality and equal opportunity. Therefore, for appointment on sanctioned post, advertisement is issued and candidates are selected in interview by the selection committee and the management committee recommends the name of the selected candidate to the Government for appointment, which is approved after completing all the formalities and verifying educational certificates of successful candidate. It has further been submitted that the petitioner after having applied for the post pursuant to the advertisement is estopped from challenging the same.

6. A supplementary counter affidavit dated 10.03.2017 has been filed by the respondent controverting the averments