Jharkhand High Court
Sudeshwar Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 30 September, 2005
Equivalent citations: [2005(4)JCR479(JHR)]
Author: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
ORDER
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.
1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order, contained in Memo No. 258, dated 15th March, 2005. Issued by the District Superintendent of Education. Lohardaga, whereby and whereunder, giving reference to a proceeding of the District Education Establishment Committee, Lohardaga, dated 9th March, 2005 and letter No. 389, dated 8th February, 2005, issued by the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Primary Teacher has been rejected.
The petitioner has been informed that he being overage for appointment to the post of Primary Teacher and there being no post reserved for Other Backward Class, his case can not be considered for appointment.
The petitioner has also prayed to call for and quash letter No. 389, dated 8th February, 2005, issued by the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
2. The petitioner, having possessed B.A. (Hons) qualification and having passed Primary Teachers Training Examination, held by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, in 1989, applied for appointment to the post of Primary Teacher in the district of Lohardaga, pursuant to an advertisement, published by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (J.P.S.C.' for short) in the daily newspaper in August, 2002. He claimed himself to be a member of Other Backward Class and also claimed for his appointment against reserved post, apart from unreserved post. In the advertisement, published in August, 2002, under the heading 'Age Limit' while no specific age was prescribed, in respect to the candidates, who had already "been trained from a recognized institute, it was prescribed that only in the first appointment year in the light of Rule 4(gha) of Jharkhand Primary School Appointment Rules, 2002, the benefit of age relaxation shall be given to such extent so that the candidates after selection through competitive test and appointment, if do not complete ten years of continuous service and retire prior to the same, the benefit of pension etc. shall not be provided. 3. Subsequently, a notice was published by the J.P. S.C., as contained in Annexure 3/A to the writ petition, wherein, specific age limit was prescribed, English version of which reads as follows :
3. Age Limit-The age of an applicant as on 1st July, 2002 should be minimum 18 years and maximum 40 years for General Category, 42 years for Backward Category/Most Backward Category, 43 years for Women (Unreserved/Backward/Most Backward Category) and 45 years for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Male and Female) Category."
4. The date of birth of the petitioner, as shown in the Matriculation Certificate is 15th January, 1962. As on 1st July, 2002 he was about 40 years and 6 months old. He was called to appear at the written test and having competed, his name was shown as successful candidate in the merit fist, published by the J.P.S.C. in the newspaper on 14th November, 2003. His name was shown at serial No. 65 amongst the list of successful candidates of General Category, In spite of the same, he having not received the letter of appointment, moved before this Court vide W.P. (S) No. 6649 of 2004. A Bench of this Court by its order dated 22nd December, 2004 directed the District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga, to consider the representation of the petitioner and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. Thereafter, the direction of the Court having not been complied with, when a contempt petition was preferred by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondents considered the case of the petitioner and rejected his claim as communicated vide Memo No. 258, dated 15th March, 2005.
5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner, being overage i.e. more than 40 years, his case can not be considered against unreserved post (General Category). For the district of Lohardaga, there being no reservation for other Backward Class, the question of appointment of the petitioner as Primary Teacher against any reserved post of other Backward Class does not arise.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the age limit, as prescribed in the advertisement, published in August, 2002 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) and submitted that the petitioner is entitled for relaxation of age, as it was a first recruitment year after promulgation of Jharkhand Primary School Recruitment Rules, 2002. However, such submission was opposed by the learned counsel for the State.
7. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that the State of Jharkhand has issued a guideline prescribing age limit for appointment in the services of the State of Jharkhand vide resolution, having Memo No. 3122, dated 5th September, 2001. While referring to the age limit, as was prescribed by the State of Bihar vide resolution No. 2212, dated 28th February, 1996, it was decided that the maximum age limit, as prescribed vide resolution No. 2212, dated 28th February, 1996 shall continue for five years (for appointment to the Gazetted and Non-Gazetted posts) starting from 1st January, 2000 up to 31st December, 2005. The following maximum age limits, thus, is to continue even after creation of the State of Jharkhand :
Unreserved 35 years 2. Backward/Most 37 years Backward Category 3. Women (unreserved/ 38 years backward and most backward category) 4. Scheduled Caste/ 40 years Scheduled Tribe (Male and Female)
8. From the facts, as narrated and shown above, it will be evident that a general guideline relating to the age limit, as was fixed by the State of Bihar, was adopted by the State of Jharkhand vide Memo No. 3122, dated 5th September, 2001 But in the matter of appointment of Trained Primary Teachers, relaxation of age in the matter of first appointment was given, as shown in the advertisement, published in the newspaper in the month of August, 2002 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition), followed by the age relaxation, as shown in the corrigendum, published by the J.P.S.C. (Annexure 3/A to he writ petition).
9. In such circumstances, the petitioner and others, who applied for appointment as trained Primary Teachers, will not be guided by the general circular of the State Government, contained in Memo No. 3122, dated 5th September, 2001 read with resolution No. 2212, dated 28th February, 1996, issued by the State of Bihar, But they will be guided by the age limit, as prescribed in the advertisement (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) and the corrigendum (Annexure 3 /A to the writ petition). As on 1st July 2002, the age of the candidate should be : for the General Category-maximum 40 years, for Backward Category-maximum 42 years, for Most backward category-maximum 42 years, for Woman (Unreserved/ Backward/Most Backward Category)-max-imum 42 years, for Scheduled Caste-maximum 45 years and for Scheduled Tribe-maximum 45 years.
10. So far the petitioner is concerned, he , being a member of Other Backward Category, is entitled to the benefits of maximum age limit, as prescribed for Backward Category i.e. 42 years. If there is no post reserved, then in that case, he is also entitled for consideration of his case foe appointment against unreserved post. The petitioner having born on 15th January, 1962, and on 1st July, 2002, he being 40 years and 6 months old, the respondents can not reject his case on the ground of overage, even if he is considered for appointment against unreserved post.
11. The stand taken by the respondents that no candidate of reserved category can be appointed against unreserved post cannot be accepted. Other eligible person, irrespective of the caste, is eligible for consideration of his case against unreserved post. So far as maximum age limit is concerned, it has nexus with the candidate and the category to which such candidate belongs. It has no nexus with the post i.e. whether it is reserved or unreserved.
12. For the reasons aforesaid, the decision, as stated to have been taken by the District Education Establishment Committee, Lohardaga, in its meeting held on 9th February, 2005 and letter No. 389, dated 8th February, 2005, issued by the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, can not be upheld, They are, accordingly, declared illegali The order of rejection, based on such decision, as communicated by the District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga, .vide Memo No. 258, dated 1th March, 2005 is, accordingly, set aside. The respondents are directed to issue letter of appointment in favour of the petitioner, he having been declared successful by T.P.S.C. and the persons below him in the merit list, having already been appointed. The judgment and direction of this Court be complied with by the respondents within there weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
13. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.