IMPORTANT POINT
Candidates must fulfill requisite qualifications at the time of appointment; failure to do so renders the appointment void ab initio.

JUDGMENT :

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK

Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the office order issued vide memo no. 2150, dated 17.07.2017 (Annexure-11) whereby his appointment has been held to be void-ab-initio and the same stood cancelled. Further prayer has been made for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits.

3. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the advertisement no. 03/2015, vacancies were floated for appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher. Petitioner being eligible, applied for the same and after having been found eligible for the said post, fulfilling all the requirement and eligibility criteria, was appointed to the post of Trained (Literature) Teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 9,300 – 34,800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/-. Thereafter, appointment letter dated 31.12.2015 was issued in respect of 119 teachers including the petitioner whose name finds place at Serial No. 9. Thereafter, petitioner submitted his joining and was sent for training. After completion of training for the period from 18.01.2016 to 24.01.2016, he was relieved for joining. Pursuant to the office order issued vide memo no. 68, dated 06.02.2016, petitioner was posted in Government Middle School, Patarhatu within Silli Block in the district of Ranchi. Though petitioner worked but salary was not paid to him. Petitioner made several representations but no heed was paid to the same. One fine morning, petitioner received a show-cause notice to submit his explanation why not his appointment be cancelled for not fulfilling the eligibility criteria as he had obtained less than 50% marks in graduation. In compliance to the said show-cause notice, petitioner submitted his explanation that he fulfills the requisite qualification and he has scored 50% marks in graduation as required in the advertisement. Not satisfied with the said explanation in terms of Rule 21(Kh) (ii)(Aa), appointment of the petitioner stood cancelled vide office order issued under Memo NO. 2150, dated 17.07.2017. Being aggrieved, petitioner has knocked door of this Court.

4. Mr. A.K.Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that the petitioner fulfills the requisite qualification for appointment as per terms and conditions enumerated in the advertisement. It has further been argued that appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled without following the procedures and adhering to cardinal principles of natural justice. No proper opportunity of hearing was given to him before holding the appointment as void-ab-initio. The stand of the respondents that petitioner is not fulfilling requisite qualification and criteria is not at all tenable in the eyes of law as the said observation is illegal, arbitrary and in contrary to the guidelines of Appointment Rules as also the NCTE Rules. It has further been argued that petitioner had scored 417 marks in honours in English Paper, Literature and the same cannot be said to be less than 50% marks as per requirement of the advertisement and he was selected for taking admission in B.Ed. Courses and had successfully completed the same also. He had obtained 50.8% marks in totality. Therefore, he was rightly appointed on the said post. It has further been argued that the petitioner fulfills the pre-condition of Rule 4(Kh)(21) where it was provided that the candidate should score at least 45% marks in graduation or equivalent degree and should have completed 1 years’ course of B.Ed.. Placing heavy reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Kumar Rai and others Vs. State of UP and others in Civil Appeal No. 9732 of 2017, learned counsel submits that there is no discrepancy as alleged by the respondents and in view of observation and law laid down in the aforesaid Judgment, which covers case of the petitioner, the impugned order is fit to be qu