IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.322 of 2009
Permanand Singh ... ... ... ... ... Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand and others ... ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. Y. EQBAL
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
------
For the Appellant: Mr. B.K. Dubey
For the Respondents: M/s. S.P. Roy & S.C.II
------
Reserved on: 03.2.2010 Pronounced on: 9th February, 2010
M. Y. Eqbal, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated
20.5.2009
passed in W.P. (S) No.106 of 2007 whereby the learned Single
Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant
wherein appointment of respondent No.5 as Para-Teacher was
challenged.
2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: –
In January, 2006, an advertisement was issued by the
concerned respondents for appointment of teachers for the Primary
Schools under the scheme of District Level Jharkhand Education
Project Council. The minimum qualification fixed in the advertisement
was Intermediate. Further, it was mentioned in the advertisement that
in case of two persons having identical/similar qualification, then
preference will be given to Intermediate (Science) candidates. Further
condition was laid down that preference will be given to those who are
highly qualified. Both the appellant (writ petitioner) and respondent
No.5 applied for the said post. On the one hand, qualification of the
appellant was M.A. with Basic Teachers’ Training, whereas
qualification of respondent No.5 was only I.Sc. In spite of the condition
put in the advertisement, respondent No.5 was selected for the said
post.
3. Petitioner-appellant then moved this Court by filing W.P.
(S) No.106 of 2007 challenging the appointment of respondent No.5 on
the ground inter alia that appellant possessing higher qualification i.e.
M.A. with Basic Teachers’ Training, but respondent No.5 who was got
qualification of I.Sc. only, was selected for appointment on the post of
Teacher. Respondent filed counter affidavit and the learned Single
Judge dismissed the writ petition relying on the statements made in
2 L.P.A.No.322/09
the counter affidavit that the post advertised was for Intermediate
Science Teachers and therefore, since respondent No.5 was holding
qualification of I.Sc., he has been selected.
4. We have heard Mr. B.K. Dubey, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel appearing
for the private respondent.
5. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the
judgment passed by learned Single Judge is quoted herein below: –
“The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my
attention to the counter affidavit stating that the post
advertised was for Inter Science and it was in this background
that they preferred respondent No.5 who was having an
Intermediate Science qualification. The petitioner participated
in the process along with others and after due selection could
not compete and there is no dispute about the fact that it is a
selection post and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
The guideline that preference will be given does not by itself
entitle or confer any legal or an accrued or vested right to be
appointed which can be enforced by way of a writ of
mandamus. It is only an added qualification with the pre-
condition that only in situation when there are identical
candidates having identical qualification such preference will
be taken into account. The fact remains that the petitioner was
not having a science background even though he may be M.A.”
6. Prima facie, learned Single Judge has committed error of
record inasmuch as the advertisement was issued not for appointment
of Inter Science Teacher, rather for appointment of a teacher in a
Primary School. In the said advertisement, as stated above, it was
clearly mentioned that preference will be given to those who are
highly qualified. Admittedly, the appellant was much more qualified
than that of respondent No.5 and, therefore, selection of respondent
No.5 on the false statement made in the counter affidavit that
advertisement was for Science Teacher is absolutely and palpably
incorrect, arbitrary and malafide.
7. For the reason aforesaid, this appeal is allowed and the
impugned judgment is set aside. It is held that the appellant who is
M.A. with Basic Teachers’ Training is entitled to be appointed on the
post of primary teacher.
(M. Y. Eqbal, J)
R. R. Prasad, J.
(R. R. Prasad, J)
Raman /A.F.R.