##PAGE1##

(2026:JHHC:2403)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (S). No. 146 of 2024

Bubai Pahari, w/o Shri Putul Kumar Singh, aged about 40 years,

resident of Rani Bag, Behind Shanti Cinema Hall, P.O. & P.S. -

Ramgarh (829122), Town & District - Ramgarh, Jharkhand.

… … Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, School Education and

Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, having office at

Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, Town & District -

Ranchi, Jharkhand.

2. The Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission having office

at Chai Bagan, Kalinagar, Namkom, P.O. & P.S. - Namkom, Town

& District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.

3. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection

Commission having office at Chai Bagan, Kalinagar, Namkom, P.O.

& P.S. - Namkom, Town & District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.

… … Respondents

---

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Piyush Kumar Roy, Advocate

For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate

---

th

04/29 January 2026

1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. The petitioner claims appointment as a Graduate Trained Teacher

and he is aggrieved by the action of the respondent by which his

candidature has been rejected.

3. It is case of the petitioner that the petitioner has one subject in

graduation as English, thus, he should be treated to be qualified as

per the advertisement and be treated to be graduate in

English subject.

4. Prescribing essential qualification for appointment falls within the

exclusive domain of the employer. The Court exercising

1

(2026:JHHC:2403)

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot decide

what is best for the employer and interpret the condition of the

advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same. Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Public Service

Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362 : at

Paragraph No. 9 has held as under:-

9. The essential qualifications for appointment to a

post are for the employer to decide. The employer

may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications,

including any grant of preference. It is the employer

who is best suited to decide the requirements a

candidate must possess according to the needs of the

employer and the nature of work. The court cannot

lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it

delve into the issue with regard to desirable

qualifications being on a par with the essential

eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the

advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall

outside the domain of judicial review. If the language

of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the court

cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an

ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any

rules or law the matter has to go back to the

appointing authority after appropriate orders, to

proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the

court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of

the appointing authority to decide what is best for the

employer and interpret the conditions of the

advertisement contrary to the plain language of the

same.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner had applied for employment as Graduate

Trained Teacher in English language. It is the admitted case of the

parties that the rule and the advertisement provides that a person

should be graduate having 45% marks in the subject which the

petitioner is applying for. Thus, having one subsidiary subject as

English, when the main subject of the petitioner is Computer

Science, cannot make the petitioner a graduate in English

language. Thus, the respondents have correctly rejected the

candidature of the petitioner as she is not a graduate in the subject

she had applied for.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Manoj Kumar

Mahto, Shankar Kalmani and several others were appoint in a

2

(2026:JHHC:2403)

different subjects though their graduation was not in the same

subject in which they applied.

7. It is well settled that there cannot be any equality in illegality. If

an