Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1193
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, J.
Obaidur Rahman, son of Samsul Hoda - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 2762 of 2017
Decided on : 28-04-2025
For the Appellant :Mr. J.P. Jha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Raunak Sahay, AC to GP-V, M/s Richa Sanchita and Pinky Shaw, Advocates, M/s Navin Kumar & Harsh Chandra, Advocates.
Appointments must be transparent and merit-based, requiring proper advertising to avoid nepotism.
Headnote:(A) Jharkhand Academic Council guidelines - Allegation of illegal appointment and nepotism in teachers' recruitment without proper advertisement - Court found that appointment of respondents 8 to 11 was facilitated by inadequate advertisement publication and familial ties to officials involved. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 11)
(B) Legal principle of transparency and fairness in public appointments - The court emphasized that appointments should be free from nepotism and should be widely advertised to ensure merit-based selection. (Paras 3, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the appointments in Madarsa Enadul Uloom, alleging improper advertisement and the selection of individuals related to influential members of the institution. Respondents claimed compliance with legal requirements but lacked proper denial of nepotism allegations.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the appointments of respondents 8 to 11 were illegal due to failure to advertise properly in the local area, thus favoring nepotism.
Issues: The court addressed the legality of appointments made in the Madarsa and the adequacy of advertisement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that inadequate publication of the advertisement undermines transparency and fairness, warranting the annulment of the appointments in question.
Result: Writ petition allowed; appointments of respondents 8 to 11 set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. improper appointment process in madarsa (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. counter-affidavit supporting proper procedure (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. advertisement inadequacy and nepotism allegations (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. court's finding on advertisement issues (Para 7) |
| 5. absence of specific denial of allegations (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. final ruling on appointment validity (Para 11) |
| 7. writ petition granted; appointments annulled (Para 12) |
ORDER :
ANANDA SEN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for cancel the appointment of respondent Nos. 8 to 11, which according to the petitioner, has been made illegally on the post of teachers in Madarsa Enadul Uloom, Chandrapara, District- Pakur, without publishing the advertisement properly in the local newspaper.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were vacant post in Madarsa Enadul Uloom, Chandrapara, District- Pakur (hereinafter to be referred as “the Madarsa”). Respondent Nos. 8 to 11 have been appointed by back door means without there being any proper advertisement. The entire misdeed has been done by the Secretary and the Head Moulvi. Their kith and kin has been appointed to the post of teacher in the Madarsa. He submitted that respondent No. 8- Md. Mohjamil Haque has been appointed who in fact, is the brother-in-law of Noor Jamal Sk., the Secretary of the Madarsa. Respondent No. 10- Mohidur Rahman has also been appointed, who is the nephew of the head Moulvi of the Madarsa. It is further submitted that one Sahiba Naaj and the respondent No. 11- Abdul Tayyab Ansari have been appointed who are the kith and kin of Md. Yadim Sk., a most influential and powerful person of the locality and close friend of Secretary and the Head Moulvi. It is specific contention that the advertisement was not published in the local newspaper, rather it was published in Ranchi Edition of Urdu Newspaper namely Farooki Tanzim. Though the advertisement was published in Prabhat Khabar, but not in the Edition of Pakur District where the Madarsa is situated. It is his grievance that the appointment of respondent Nos. 8 to 11 is bad and illegal.
4. Respondent No. 2 filed counter affidavit stating that since there was vacancy of teachers in the Madarsa and the Secretary sought permission from the Jharkhand Academic Council to advertise the said post. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, they have stated that the advertisement was published in daily Hindi Newspaper 'Prabhat Khabar' Deoghar on 7.8.2016 and Daily Urdu Newspaper Faruki Tanzeem on 10.8.2016. After the applications were received, the Governing Council of the Madarsa held a meeting on 30.8.2016 where the District Education Officer was also present. For Intermediate teacher, six applicants appeared for the written and oral test. For the Maulvi, seven applicants appeared for the written and oral test. For the Aalim, six applicants appeared for the written and oral test. Paragraph 12 of counter affidavit reads as under:-
“12. That it is stated that thereafter a meeting of Governing council was held on 15.9.2016, in which, the applicant who stood first in the written and oral examination were selected, which are as follows:-
a. Aalim: Md. Mojammil Haque, son of Abdul Haque.
b. Maulvi: Sabiha Naj, son of Enamul Haque.
c. Inter Trained: Mohidur Rahman, son of Najul Shaikh.
d. Matric Trained: Abdul Taiyaab Ansari, S/o Abdul Kalam Ansasri.”
5. There was a complaint demanding high level enquiry. The enquiry was held and it was found that the allegations were not true. Thereafter,the appointment was approved. It has been stated that no illegality has been committed in the said appointment.
6. During course of argument, the main thrust given by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner was that the posts were not widely advertised and only to ensure that kith and kin of the Members of the Madarsa be appointed, the advertisement was not published in newspaper of Pakur, where the Madarsa is situated. It is specific
