Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Reeta Mukta – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 192 of 2021
Decided on : 20-06-2024
[EMPLOYMENT] - [TERMINATION OF SERVICE] - [Jharkhand Primary Teachers’ Education Appointment Rules, 2012, Rule 14] - [The court discussed the Jharkhand Primary Teachers’ Education Appointment Rules, 2012, particularly Rule 14, which mandates two years of continuous service as a Para Teacher for eligibility in the appointment of Assistant Teachers. The court interpreted this rule as a strict eligibility criterion that must be met by candidates. The court concluded that the petitioner did not fulfill this requirement by the specified cut-off date, leading to the affirmation of her termination. The court emphasized that equity cannot override statutory requirements, and any appointment made without adherence to these rules is deemed illegal.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher based on her experience as a Para Teacher. However, her service was terminated on the grounds that she did not meet the two-year experience requirement as stipulated in the Jharkhand Primary Teachers’ Education Appointment Rules, 2012, by the cut-off date mentioned in the advertisement for the position.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not have the requisite two years of experience as a Para Teacher by the cut-off date specified in the advertisement. The court upheld the termination of her service, stating that her appointment was illegal as it did not comply with the mandatory conditions set forth in the recruitment rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had the requisite qualifications/experience as per the recruitment rules and advertisement conditions. 2. Whether the court could grant relaxation of the eligibility criteria. 3. Whether allowing such relaxation would violate the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that strict adherence to the eligibility criteria outlined in the recruitment rules and advertisement is mandatory. Any appointment made without fulfilling these criteria is illegal. The court also ruled that equity cannot override statutory provisions, and relaxation of eligibility requirements is not permissible unless explicitly stated in the rules or advertisement.
Final Decision: The intra-court appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge to uphold the termination of the petitioner’s service.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer:
1. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against order/judgment dated 18.06.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 5648 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the decision as contained in Memo No. 3032 dated 05.10.2018 issued under the Signature of District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi, by which, the petitioner has been terminated from services from the post of Assistant Teacher, has been refused to be interfered with.
Facts of the case:
2. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, reads as under:
3. The Human Resource Development Department (Primary Education Directorate) came out with a Statutory Rule being Jharkhand Primary Teachers’ Education Appointment Rules, 2012 [Hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2012] for appointment of Teachers in Primary School under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 14 of the Rules, 2012 prescribes the eligibility criteria, according to which 50% posts were reserved for those Para Teachers who have completed two years of continuous service for direct appointment as Trained Teacher or Graduate Trained Teacher in different Schools of the State Government. On the basis of said appointment Rule, an Advertisement was published for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers in Government Middle Schools for those persons who have minimum two years teaching experience of working as Para Teacher.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that initially in pursuance to the Advertisement published on 12.02.2012 by the Jharkhand Education Project Council for appointment on the post of Para Teachers, the petitioner applied and was duly selected in Aam Sabha (General Meeting) of the Village Education Committee held on 26.02.2012. Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to submit her joining in the office of Block Education Extension Officer, Kanke Block at Ranchi and where she gave her joining on 06.01.2014 and the Block Education Extension Officer had accepted the joining of the petitioner.
5. It is further case of the petitioner that while working as such an advertisement being advertisement no. 04/2015 was published for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher, in which, the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher against the reserved quota of 50% Para Teachers. In the selection process, the petitioner participated and declared successful.
6. Accordingly, she was appointed vide Memo No. 3729 dated 31.12.2015 issued under the signature of District Superintendent of Education, wherein name of the petitioner figures at Sl. No. 117. Thereafter, vide Memo No. 173 dated 06.02.2016 the petitioner was directed to submit her joining in the Government Middle School, Boreya, as such she gave her joining in Govt. Middle School, Boreya on 08.02.2016.
7. It is further case of the petitioner that while working as such she was served with show-cause notice as contained in Letter No. 2267 dated 29.07.2017 in which she was directed to file reply regarding her working experience as a Para Teacher which according to the authorities was not two years at the time of publication of Advertisement. The said show-cause was replied by the petitioner on 06.09.2017 but again she was served with second show-cause notice dated 08.03.2018 to which she replied vide letter dated 21.03.2018. But it is the case of the petitioner that without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner the respondent-authority passed order as contained in Memo No. 3032 dated 05.10.2018 whereby the service of the petitioner was terminated considering her candidature as ab initio void.
8. It is, thus, evident from the above factual aspect that in pursuance to advertisement being advertisement no. 04/2015 published for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher, the petitioner was appointed vide Memo No. 3729 dated 31.12.2015 against the reserved quota of 50% Para Teachers. While working as such show cause was s
The court established that eligibility criteria for public employment must be strictly adhered to, and any appointment made contrary to these criteria is illegal. Equity cannot be invoked to override....
The management of private schools must adhere to the mandatory provisions of the M.E.P.S. Act and Rules, including obtaining prior permission from the Education Officer before recruitment, to ensure ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding the credibility of the recruitment process in public employment and the prohibition of nepotism in appointments.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
