Back
2024 Supreme(Jhk) 652
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Deepak Roshan, J.
Manisha Rani Toppo - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 5753 of 2022, W.P.(S) No. 5646 of 2022, W.P.(S) No. 143 of 2023
Decided On : 04-10-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA-III Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to GA-III 2, Mr. Jai Prakash, AAG-IA Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, AC to AAG-IA, Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Pravin Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
The court affirmed that valid GATE score cards are mandatory for eligibility for Assistant Professor positions, and JPSC's recommendations are not binding if candidates do not meet the stipulated criteria.
Headnote:(A) Jharkhand Technical Education Service Rules, 2013 - Eligibility criteria for appointment as Assistant Professor - Valid GATE score card was a condition precedent for eligibility as per the advertisement - Petitioners failed to fulfill eligibility criteria and were rightly not appointed. (Paras 11, 13, 14)
(B) Recommendation of JPSC - Not binding on the State Government - The State is not obliged to follow the recommendations of the Commission if the candidates do not meet the eligibility criteria. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners applied for the post of Assistant Professor in BIT Sindri but were not issued appointment letters despite being recommended by JPSC due to not possessing valid GATE score cards.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the petitioners did not meet the eligibility criteria as stipulated in the advertisement, specifically regarding the GATE score requirement.
Issues: Whether the GATE score was a mandatory requirement for eligibility and the binding nature of JPSC's recommendations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the GATE score was indeed a condition precedent for eligibility, and the State was not bound by the JPSC's recommendations if the candidates did not meet the criteria.
Result: All writ applications dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Deepak Roshan, J.
Since all these writ applications are having similar issue involved; accordingly, with the consent of parties all were heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. WP(S) No. 5753 of 2022 is with respect to the Advertisement No. 05 of 2017; whereby online application had been invited for appointment (backlog) to the vacant post of Assistant Professor in BIT Sindri controlled by the Department of Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand in the Pay-Scale of Rs.15,600-39000 + Grade-Pay with AGP-Rs.6000/-, whereas; WP(S) No. 143 of 2023 and WP(S) No. 5646 of 2022 are in connection with Advertisement No. 13 of 2017 for the post of Assistant Professor in BIT Sindri for different branches
3. The petitioners in WP(S) No. 143 of 2023 applied in ST category; whereas in WP(S) No. 5646 of 2022 petitioner no.1 applied for the post of Chemical Engineering in ST category, petitioner no.2 applied for the post of Electronic & Telecommunication in ST category, petitioner no.3 applied for the post of Electrical Engineering in ST category and petitioner no.4 applied for the post of Electronic & Telecommunication in ST category.
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (in short, JPSC) has issued interview/e-call letters to the petitioners and petitioners in all these writ applications have appeared for the interview and their results have been published on the website and subsequently name of the respective petitioners were also recommended for the respective post to the Department of Higher and Technical Education.
Later on, the concerned Department fixed the date for verification of certificates etc. and ultimately the name of the petitioners was recommended for appointment. However, none of the petitioners have been issued letter of appointment.
5. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, representing the petitioners submits that though the petitioners fulfill all the requisite qualification as per the advertisement and their names were also recommended by the JPSC which is evident from Annexure-8 to WP(S) No. 5753 of 2022 but on the basis of wrong interpretation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement, letter of appointment was not issued to the respective petitioners by the respondent-State of Jharkhand.
It has been contended that as per the advertisement, it is crystal clear that valid GATE score card was not the condition precedent. As such clause 6 in the advertisement which deals with the eligibility criteria has been misinterpreted. Learned counsels for the respective petitioner reiterated that since the GATE score card was not the condition precedent, as such the respondent-State of Jharkhand be directed to issue offer of appointment strictly in accordance with the recommendation made by the JPSC.
6. Per contra, Mr. Jai Prakash, learned AAG-IA appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that valid GATE score card was condition precedent and the same has been clarified in the later portion of the same column. Ld. Sr. Counsel further submits that the recommendation of JPSC is not binding on the State-authority if JPSC has not recommended the names.
He contended that it is a settled proposition of law that recommendation of the Commission cannot be treated as binding on the State Government and it is also a settled proposition of law that the relaxation in the essential eligibility qualification could not be made post the last date fixed on receipt of application of the candidates and in all these writ applications the petitioners have not fulfilled the requisite qualification and they have not obtained the cut-off marks as per the advertisement. Therefore, their candidature has been cancelled.
Learned AAG-IA further submits that it is true that the Commission has recommended the name of the petitioners along with other candidates for appointment in their respective branches, however, t
