IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4607 of 2011
with
W.P.(S) Nos.4635,4671,4672,4277,4283,4746,4600,4806
4811, 4817,4859,5023,5027, 5271, 5293,5297,5355, 4609,
4643, 4861,5263 and 5357 of 2011.
-----
Kiran Majhi . Petitioner in 4607/2011
Somra Soren Petitioner in 4635/2011
Chanu Singh Majhi Petitioner in 4671/2011
Surendra Majhi @ Surendra Manjhi Petitioner in 4672/2011
Amrit Majhi & Ors Petitioner in 4277/2011
Saraswati Jamuda Petitioner in 4283/2011
Lalit Manjhi Petitioner in 4746/2011
Ranjit Manjhi Petitioner in 4600/2011
Ajit Majhi @ Ajit Manjhi Petitioner in 4806/2011
Brihaspati Hansda Petitioner in 4811/2011
Kartik Manjhi Petitioner in 4817/2011
Suchand Majhi Petitioner in 4859/2011
Kritan Manjhi Petitioner in 5023/2011
Sukram Majhi Petitioner in 5027/2011
Hopna Majhi Petitioner in 5271/2011
Lobin Manjhi @ Lobin Majhi Petitioner in 5293/2011
Iswar Murmu Petitioner in 5297/2011
Ajit Kumar Manjhi @ Ajit Kumar
Murmu Petitioner in 5355/2011
Bimal Kumar Majhi Petitioner in 4609/2011
Dasharath Majhi Petitioner in 4643/2011
Bihari Lal Majhi Petitioner in 4861/2011
Raiman Singh Mundri Petitioner in 5263/2011
Bir Singh Sundi Petitioner in 5357/2011
. Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Human Resources Development Department,
Jharkhand, Ranchi
3.Director, Primary Education, Human Resources
Development, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4.Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman,District Education
Establishment Committee, Saraikela .
5.District Superintendent of Education at Saraikela.
Respondents.
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
------
For the Petitioner : M/s. K. M.Verma, M.M.Sharma &
Lakhan Sharma.
For the Respondent : M/s B.N.Tiwary JC to G.P.III.,Nehala
Sharmin, JC to Sr. SC-II, V.K.Trivedi, JC
to SC-III, Rakesh Kumar Sinha, JC to Sr.
SC-I.
------
05/14.11.2011
. In above writ applications, similar point has been
raised, thus they are heard together and disposed of by this
order.
2. It appears that Jharkhand Public Service
Commission had issued an advertisement ( Annexure-3) for
appointment of 9323 Assistant Teachers in different
Elementary Schools including 391 Assistant Teachers of the
schools situated in the district of Saraikela.
3. It further appears that petitioners of present writ
applications, being matriculate and having teachers’ training
certificate issued by Adibasi Socio-Educational & Cultural
Association, Chakulia, District East Singhbhum had applied
for the said post. It is further stated that Jharkhand Public
Service Commission after due scrutiny issued Admit Card to
the petitioners and accordingly petitioners appeared in the
written examination. Thereafter, petitioners were declared
successful and their names recommended for appointment.
It is stated that names of the petitioners of all the writ
applications, except petitioners of W.P.(S) Nos. 4277,4283,
5263 and 5357 of 2011m were recommended for
appointment as Assistant Teachers in Santhali Language,
whereas names of petitioners of W.P.(S) Nos. 4277, 4283,
5263 and 5357 of 2011 were recommended for appointment
as Assistant Teachers in ‘Ho’ language. It is stated that even
after recommendation of the names of petitioners, the State
Government is not issuing the appointment letter. Hence,
present writ applications filed for issuance of a direction
commanding the State Government to issue appointment
letters in favour of the petitioners.
4. A counter- affidavit filed, in W.P.(S) No. 4607 of
2011, stating therein that advertisement was made by the
Jharkhand Public Service Commission according to the
provision contained in Jharkhand Elementary School
(Appointment) Rules, 2002. It is further stated that according
to said Rules candidates are required to obtain two years
teachers’ training from an institute recognized by N.C.T.E. It
is further stated in the counter affidavit that Adibasi Socio-
Educational & Cultural Association, from where petitioners
obtained two years’ teachers’ training certificate , is not
recognized either by N.C.T.E. or by the State Government.
Thus, as per the aforesaid Rules, petitioners are not eligible
to be appointed as Assistant Teachers. It is further submitted
that Jharkhand Public Service Commission recommended the
names of petitioners for appointment on the post of
Assistant Teachers either in Santhali Language or in Ho
Language. But , from perusal of the advertisement it is clear
that there is no advertisement for appointment on the post
of Assistant Teachers in Santhali Language or in Ho
Language. Thus, recommendation of Jharkhand Public
Service Commission for appointment of these petitioners as
Assistant Teachers in Santhali Language or in Ho Language is
against the advertisement. It is then submitted that though
there is recommendation of Public Service Commission but
the same will not give any legal right to the petitioners for
being appointed on the post of Assistant Teachers. It is
submitted that the State Government has got power to
refuse appointment, if it found that petitioners are not
eligible for appointment.
5. It is state by Mr. K.M.Verma, learned counsel for
the petitioners that in similar circumstances, with respect to
the candidates of the district of West Singhbhum, this Court
vide Annexures- 5, 6 and 7 had directed the State
Government to make appointment within four months . Mr.
D.K.Prasad, JC to G.P.III submitted that against the said order,
the State of Jharkhand had preferred an appeal i.e. L.P.A.No.
328/2011 and the same is still pending. However, Mr. Prasad
further submitted that the said order was passed on
assumption that advertisement was made for appointment
on the post of Assistant Teachers of ‘Ho’ Language.
6. Having heard the submissions , I have gone
through the record of the case. From perusal of
Annexure-3(Advertisement), it is clear that the same was
issued as per provisions contained in the Jharkhand
Elementary School (Appointment) Rules, 2002(Annexure-B).
Clause 4 of the said advertisement prescribes eligibility for
appointment on the post of Assistant teachers i.e.
candidates :- (i) should be citizen of India, (ii) should have
passed matriculation examination or equivalent and (iii)
should have two years teachers’ training or
B.Ed./Dip.in.Ed./Dip.in.Teach, C.P.Ed./Dip.P.Ed. Rule 2(Kha)
defines training. According to the said Rule, a candidate is
required to obtain training from a recognized Institution. It is
stated in the counter affidavit that in the year 1993 Nation
Council for Teachers Education(NCTE) Act, 1993 was enacted
and after enactment of the said Act it is mandatory that all
the Teachers’ Training Institutes should obtain recognition
from N.C.T.E. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that
Adibasi Socio-Educational & Cultural Association is not
recognized by N.C.T.E . Therefore, I find that any certificate
obtained by the petitioners from the said Association will
not make them eligible for appointment on the post of
Assistant teachers in Elementary Schools situated in the
State of Jharkhand .
7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioners that there is no Institute recognized by N.C.T.E
which imparted training for Ho Language or Santhali
Language. Since petitioners were recommended for
appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in Ho
Languate or in Santhali Language, therefore, the said criteria
will not apply. Thus, petitioners can be appointed even
without obtaining teachers’ training from recognized
institute. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioners
relied upon the judgments contained in Annexures- 5, 6 and
7. Aforesaid submissions made by the counsel for the
petitioners appears to be mis-conceived. Ass notice above,
there is no advertisement for appointment on the post of
Assistant Teachers in Santhali Language and/or Ho
Language. Annexure-3 clearly shows that advertisement
was made for Assistant Teachers. It is also clarified in
paragraph 23 of the counter affidavit that in Elementary
Schools all the teachers are required to teach all subjects.
Thus, the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners cannot be accepted.
8. From perusal of Annexure-5, which is the basis for
passing subsequent orders, Annexures- 6 and 7, it is clear
that the same was passed on the assumption that there was
an advertisement for the appointment on the post of
Assistant teachers in Ho Language. This fact manifest from
paragraph No.2 of Annexure-5 which runs as follows :-
” Petitioner is aggrieved on account of failure on
the part of the respondents to give appointment
as Assistant Teacher in “Ho” language for which
he/she was duly selected and the Jharkhand Public
Service Commission recommended his/her case
along with a list of 187 candidates after due
selection for the language “Ho” and name of the
petitioner figures in the list.”
9. As noticed above, advertisement was only for
Assistant teacher. There is nothing in it to show that it was
made for appointment of Assistant teacher of any particular
language eigher in the district of West Singhghum or in
Saraikela. Thus, the ratio of judgment contained in Annexure-
5,6 and 7 will not govern these orders, because said
judgment based on mistake of facts.
10. It is well settled that even if the the name of a
candidate recommended for appointment by Selection
Committee or Public Service Commission the same will not
provide any legal right for appointment on the post applied
for. In this connection, I do no better then to quote
paragraph 7 of the judgment of Constitution Bench of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Shankarsan Dash.Vs. Union
of India” reported in 1991(3)SCC-47, which runs as follow :-
“.7. It is not correct to say that if a number
of vacancies are notified for appointment
and adequate number of candidates are
found fit, the successful candidates acquire
and indefeasible right to be appointed
which cannot be legitimately denied.
Ordinarily the notification merely amounts
to an invitation to qualified candidates to
apply for recruitment and on their selection
they do not acquire any right to the post.
Unless the relevant recruitment rules so
indicate, the State is under no legal duty to
fill up all or any of the vacancies. However,
it does not mean that the State has the
licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The
decision not to fill up the vacancies has to
be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons.
And if the vacancies or any of them are filled
up, the State is bound to respect the
comparative merit of the candidates, as
reflected at the recruitment test, and no
discrimination can be permitted. This correct
position has been consistently followed by
this Court, and we do not find any
discordant note in the decisions in the State
of Haryana.v. Subhash Chander Marwaha,
Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or
Jatendra Kumar v.State of Pubjab.”
11. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the
Supreme Court, it is open for the State Government to refuse
appointment of any candidate, whose name recommended
by Public Service Commission for valid reason. In this
connection, I find that petitioners are not eligible to be
appointed on the post of Assistant Teachers, because they
have not obtained Teachers’ Training certificate from
recognized Institute. Thus, I find that the State Government
has valid reason for refusing appointment of the petitioners.
Thus, petitioners have no legal right to be appointed on the
post of Assistant teachers for which their names
recommended by Jharkhand Public Service Commission.
Consequently, I am of the view that no writ of mandamus can
be issued commanding the State of Jharkhand to issue
appointment letter in favour of petitioners. From perusal of
Annexures- 5, 6 and 7, I find that the aforesaid judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court has not been considered by their
Lordship, thus, respectfully, I disagree with the said
judgments.
12. In view of the discussions made above, I find no
merit in these writ applications. Accordingly, the same are
dismissed.
( Prashant Kumar,J.)
Raman/
