SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ.
Chaitali Sadhu, W/o. Santosh Kumar Dutta - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 424 of 2022 With I.A. No. 5877 of 2023
Decided On : 11-09-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mrs. Vipul Divya.
For the State : Mr. Niraj Kr. Mishra, AC to GP-IV.
For the JSSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall.

The main legal point established is that for the appointment of a teacher in a specific subject, a specialized degree in that subject, not a subsidiary one, is required as per the advertisement stipulations.

Headnote:

Eligibility Criteria - Appointment of Teacher - Advertisement No.21/2016 - Condition no.4 - Graduation Degree in Concerned Subject - Bangla as Subsidiary Subject - Bangla as Main Subject - Expertise in Subject - Educational Qualification - Advertisement Stipulations

Fact of the Case:

The writ petitioner applied for the post of Graduate Trained Teacher under Bangla Subject. The District Education Officer raised an objection to her selection, stating that Bangla was studied as a subsidiary subject, not a main subject, in her graduation. The writ petitioner's candidature was rejected, leading to the filing of the writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the advertisement stipulated a minimum of 45% marks in the concerned subject at the graduation level, and the requirement was for a specialized degree in a particular subject, not a subsidiary one. The court referred to previous cases and upheld the rejection of the writ petitioner's candidature.

Issues: The main issue was whether the candidates having Bangla as a subsidiary subject could be considered to possess the eligibility criteria as per the advertisement for the appointment of a teacher in Bangla subject.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the requirement for appointment as a teacher in a specific subject necessitated a specialized degree in that subject, not a subsidiary one. The court emphasized the importance of expertise in a particular subject for effective teaching.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the rejection of the writ petitioner's candidature based on the stipulations in the advertisement and the need for specialized expertise in the subject.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 12.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1621 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, while dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the objection raised by the respondent no.4 vide letter no.1588 dated 08.07.2019 regarding the appointment of Graduate Trained Teachers on the ground that the writ petitioner has not been found to be eligible to hold the post as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:-

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that an advertisement being Advertisement No.21/2016 was floated by the respondent-Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission for conducting the Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Exam-2016 for appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher. In pursuant to the same, the writ petitioner having the requisite qualification, applied for the same for the said post under Bangla Subject and after appearing in the recruitment process, she was shortlisted for the said post under Bangla Subject vide result dated 22.04.2019. However, vide letter dated 08.07.2019, District Education Officer informed the writ petitioner that objection has been raised with regard to her selection to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher for the subject Bangla as the writ petitioner had studied Bangla as a subsidiary subject, whereas she passed Graduation with Math Honours subject and was accordingly, asked to submit her response, within one week.

4. Thereafter, the writ petitioner vide letter dated 12.07.2019, replied along with supporting documents and stated therein that as per requirement of the Advertisement, a candidate was supposed to have passed Graduation Examination with minimum 45 % in the subject applied for and there was no specification as to whether it is subsidiary or Honours paper.

5. She also stated that one of her subjects in graduation was Bangla and it was compulsory to score minimum 45-50 % in order to awarded a graduate degree, but no heed was paid and the case of the writ petitioner was not recommended for appointment to the said post, whereas, at least 50 candidates all over the Jharkhand were appointed against the vacancy for subjects not being their Honours subject in graduation as per RTI filed by the writ petitioner.

6. It appears from the fact as referred hereinabove based upon the pleading that the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (in short ‘JSSC’) had issued advertisement being Advertisement No.21 of 2016 for conducting the Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Exam-2016 for appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher.

7. The writ petitioner, having the requisite qualification, applied for the same under Bangla Subject and she has appeared in the recruitment process. She was shortlisted for the said post under Bangla Subject vide result dated 22.04.2019. However, vide letter dated 08.07.2019, the District Education Officer informed the writ petitioner that objection has been raised with regard to her selection to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher for the subject Bangla as the writ petitioner had studied Bangla as a subsidiary subject, whereas she passed Graduation with Mathematics Honours subject and was accordingly, asked to submit her response, within one week. In pursuant thereto, the writ petitioner vide letter dated 12.07.2019 had replied along with supporting documents stating inter-alia therein that as per the requirement of the advertisement, a candidate was supposed to have passed Graduation Examination with minimum 45 % in the subject applied for and there was no specification as to whe

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                Please visit our Training & Support
                Center or Contact Us for assistance

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top