IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Pradip Kumar Shukla - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 5340 of 2018
Decided On : 09-04-2024
[Writ Petition] - [Post Graduate Trained Teacher Recruitment] - [Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission Advertisement No. 10/2017, Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India] - [The court analyzed the eligibility criteria set forth in the JSSC advertisement for the Post Graduate Trained Teacher position, emphasizing that only candidates with a Post Graduate degree in the relevant subject (Sanskrit) were eligible. The court interpreted the legal provisions to uphold the integrity of the selection process, asserting that deviations from the stipulated qualifications would violate constitutional principles of equality and non-arbitrariness. The court concluded that the petitioner, despite scoring higher marks than the last selected candidate, was ineligible due to not possessing the required degree, leading to the dismissal of the writ application.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for the Post Graduate Trained Teacher position in Sanskrit after being declared successful in the initial examination. However, his name was not included in the final results published by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) due to the ineligibility of his degree, which was deemed not equivalent to a Post Graduate degree in Sanskrit as required by the advertisement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the JSSC had adhered to the stipulated qualifications in the advertisement and that the petitioner’s degree did not meet the necessary criteria. The court emphasized that the selection process must be conducted strictly according to the advertisement's terms, and no relaxation could be granted without explicit provision.
Issues: ['Whether candidates can deviate from the educational qualifications specified in the advertisement.', 'Can the court relax the terms and conditions of the advertisement?', 'Can the petitioner claim eligibility based on an equivalent degree without challenging the advertisement?']
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that adherence to the qualifications specified in the advertisement is mandatory and that any relaxation of these terms must be explicitly stated. The court referenced previous judgments affirming that the court cannot interfere with the expert committee's decisions regarding educational qualifications.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ application, concluding that the petitioner was not eligible for the position due to the ineligibility of his degree as per the advertisement's requirements.
JUDGMENT :
Deepak Roshan, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner following reliefs:
(ii) For the direction upon the respondent to stay the result published by the Jharkhand Staff selection commission dated 28.08.2018..
(iii). For issuance of writ in the nature of quo- warranto for asking the respondent no. 4 that under what circumstances and what authorities it has not selected present petitioner even after scoring much more marks than finally selected candidate.
3. The brief facts of the case is that an advertisement had been published by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter to be referred as JSSC)for the Post Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Examination vide Advertisement No. 10/2017 for filling up several post of teachers. The petitioner had filled the form for the post of Post Graduate Trained Teacher from the subject of Sanskrit and appeared in its main examination.
The result of the examination was published on 03.07.2018 in which the petitioner's roll number was published as a successful candidate. Pursuant to the result, the successful candidates were directed to verify all their educational documents before the Commission. The petitioner appeared before JSSC and submitted all his documents for verification.
The petitioner submitted one certificate issued by Sampurnanad Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya Varanasi dated 09.08.2018 which was issued by the Examination Controller of the said University which has clearly stated that said University issued Post Graduate Certificate in Sanskrit as Acharya and it is equivalent to as Master’s Degree in Sanskrit and its mode of education is Sanskrit only.
After verifying and considering all the relevant documents, JSSC issued the final result on 28.08.2018 in which the petitioner's roll number was not published.
Being aggrieved, petitioner filed the instant application and also prays for stay of the result published and direction upon the respondent to publish revised result.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an advertisement was published by JSSC for the Post Graduate Trained Teacher vide Advertisement No. 10/2017. Petitioner being eligible in all respect filled the form for the post of Post Graduate Trained Teacher from the subject of Sanskrit and appeared in main examination which was held on 08.03.2018 bearing Roll No.79091300644. The result of examination dated 08.03.2018 was published on 03.07.2018 in which petitioner's roll number was published as successful candidate and was further directed to verify all the educational documents before the commission.
Thereafter, petitioner appeared before JSSC and verified all his documents regarding which Commission was satisfied and for some clarification petitioner submitted certificate issued by Sampurnanad Sanskrit Vishwavidyalay Varanasi dated 09.08.2018 which was issued by Examination Controller of the said University which has clearly indicated that said University issued Post Graduate Certificate in Sanskrit as Acharya and it is equivalent as Master’s Degree in Sanskrit and its mode of education is Sanskrit only.
He further submits that after verifying and considering all the relevant documents, JSSC issued final result in wh
Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors reported in AIR 2012 SC 1803
Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors vs. Kamini and Ors.
Dr. G. Sarana Vs. University of Lucknow & Ors. reported in (1976) 3 SCC 585.
Marripati Nagaraja Vs. Govt of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
Vijendra Kumar Verma vs. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and Ors.
The court established that strict compliance with the qualifications outlined in public service advertisements is essential to uphold the principles of equality and non-arbitrariness under Articles 1....
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 stipu....
Appointment – In field of education, Court of Law cannot act as an expert normally – Whether or not a student/candidate is possessing requisite qualification should better be left to educational inst....
The exclusion of two-year B.Ed. holders from recruitment is arbitrary; advertised minimum qualifications must include all eligible candidates, consistent with NCTE regulations.
The employer has the right to prescribe qualifications suitable for the post, and the court cannot go into the issue of correctness of qualifications prescribed.
There is no equivalent Rule akin to Rule 10(a)(ii). A perusal of the said Rule 10(a)(ii) clearly presupposes and provides that the acquisition of a higher qualification would presuppose the acquisiti....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.