Back
RAJESH SHANKAR
Nirmal Pahan – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand through its Secretary/Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department – Respondent
ORDER :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
The present batch of writ petitions except W.P.(S) No. 6112 of 2023 have been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents, in particular Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) to conduct document verification of the petitioners as they were declared successful in the Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Examination (CGTTCE)-2016 held pursuant to Advertisement No. 21/2016 published by JSSC, but neither call letters inviting them for document verification were issued nor any notice for the same was published in any newspaper due to which they could not appear on the date fixed for document verification. The writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6112 of 2023 has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to conduct document verification of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in the subject ‘Sanskrit’ as after being declared successful in the said written examination, he was called for document verification to be held on 31.07.2023, but could not appear due to illness. Further prayer has been made in all the writ petitions for issuance of direction upon the respondents to conside
The court ruled that candidates must adhere to the selection process terms, and failure to appear for document verification despite multiple opportunities negates any claim for relief.
Appellants lacked a legal right to personal notification for document verification as per advertisement norms; negligence in following the stipulated communication method led to dismissal of their cl....
The court established that candidates participating in a recruitment process are bound by the communication methods specified in the advertisement, and failure to check publicly available information....
simply because NOC is granted by the authority, that will not give license to the petitioners to bypass the instructions which are mandatory to be observed as contained in the advertisement, for whic....
A candidate must meet the established criteria and cut-off marks to be considered for appointment, and vacancies cannot provide an indefeasible right to appointment when the selection process is comp....
The exclusion of two-year B.Ed. holders from recruitment is arbitrary; advertised minimum qualifications must include all eligible candidates, consistent with NCTE regulations.
Candidates on a merit list do not have an indefeasible right to appointment if they fail to meet the prescribed cut-off marks, emphasizing the need for fair recruitment processes.
The court dismissed the writ petition as the petitioner did not meet the required cut-off marks for the Graduate Trained Teacher position, affirming the validity of the selection process.
Candidates participating in a selection process cannot challenge the process or regulations post-selection, establishing a principle of acquiescence in recruitment law.
The main legal point established is the requirement to adhere to principles of natural justice, including informing the reasons for rejection and providing the opportunity to rectify defects, in admi....
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
