Jharkhand High Court
Dharmendra Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 June, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 JHA 593
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3707 of 2019
Dharmendra Paswan, son of Sri Virendra Ram, resident of Village+P.O. Jainagra,
P.S. Kandi, District- Garhwa.
...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education & Literacy Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
5. The Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi
6. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi.
7. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi
...... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Aditya Raman, A.C. to G.P.-III For the Respondent -JSSC : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate C.A.V. on : 27/05/2020 Pronounced on: 02/06/2020
1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Aditya Raman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission.
2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.
3. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents to publish the result for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Government Secondary School.
4. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner appeared in Combined Graduate Trained Teachers' 2 Competitive Examination, 2016. He further submits that the petitioner filled up form on 22.03.2017 from the Garhwa district for the subject Physics & Mathematics. He further submits that the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission issued e-Admit Card in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the schedule, the examination was held on 19.11.2017 and 26.11.2017. The result was published on 04.10.2018 indicating counselling date as 02.11.2018. The petitioner appeared in counselling and submitted all the documents in respect of qualification as well as caste certificate issued by the competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the caste certificate of the petitioner was not taken up by the authority and result was declared by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission for the Physics and Mathematics subject but in the result the name of the petitioner was not figured in the column of scheduled caste. He further submits that in notice dated 22.01.2019, it has been indicated in Serial No. 05 that because of non-submission of the caste certificate issued by the appropriate authority, in support of the claim of the reservation, the candidature of the petitioner has been limited to the unreserved category.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent-Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission has not taken into consideration that the petitioner has already submitted caste certificate. Referring to Annexure-4 series of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that date of issuance of caste certificate is dated 21.11.2016. By way of referring page 36 of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that caste certificate has been issued by the Circle Officer which has been certified by the Sub Divisional Officer, Garhwa and in that view of the matter the respondent-Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission has wrongly passed notice dated 22.01.2019 and finding with regard to the petitioner at serial no. 5 is not 3 correct.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 1630 of 2017 ( Anil Tanti Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and submits that case of the petitioner is fully covered with the said judgment.
7. Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission submits that the writ petition is misconceived as petitioner has not properly complied the terms and condition of the advertisement. Learned counsel for the respondent- Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission has drawn attention of the court to the advertisement particularly Clause 8 of the advertisement and submits that the caste certificate was needed to be issued by the District/Deputy Commissioner or Sub-Divisional Officer in view of Clause 8(i) of the advertisement. By way of referring Clause 8(iii) of the Advertisement, he submits that the caste certificate was needed to be issued after 02.06.2016. He further submits that caste certificate annexed by the petitioner was issued by the Circle Officer which is not in terms of advertisement. He further submits that caste certificate was not submitted along with application. The application was submitted on 25.04.2017 and along with that application, caste certificate was not submitted and that is why notice dated 22.01.2019 has been rightly issued after considering every aspect of the matter with regard to the petitioner.
8. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission has relied on judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of "Raj Kumar Mahto & Others Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others" reported in 2020 (1) JBCJ 465 (H.C) particularly paras 34 & 36 which are quoted here-in-below:
"34. In view of facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, I 4 find that instant writ applications are also not maintainable and fit to be dismissed in view of the fact that petitioners were well aware about the terms and condition of the advertisement and thereafter only they submitted their online application forms but at the time of verification of documents, they failed to produce proper caste certificate in Proforma as mentioned in the advertisement for extending the benefits of reservation and when petitioners were treated as unreserved category, they filed instant writ applications for relaxation of the terms of the Advertisement which is not maintainable in view of the facts and in view of the settled law that after appearance in the examination, the terms and condition of the advertisement cannot be challenged by the unsuccessful candidate. In this connection, reference may be made to the judgment reported in (2011) 1 SCC 150 [Para 24 to 28] and (2007) 8 SCC 100 [Para 18] and recent Full Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2017) 4 SCC 357 (Para 12 to 21).
36. The writ applications are also not maintainable and fit to be dismissed by this Court in view of the settled law that selection process has to be completed strictly in terms of criteria mentioned in the Advertisement as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan and Ors. reported in (2011) 12 SCC Page 85. Paragraph 29 and 32 of the Judgment rendered in the case of Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan and Others reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85, reads as under:-
"29. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in 5 conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relation, if exercised, has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
32. In the fact of such conclusions, we have little hesitation in concluding that the conclusion recorded by the High Court is contrary to the facts and materials on the record. It is settled law that there can be no relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement. Even if there is a power of relaxation in the 6 rules, the same would still have to be specifically indicated in the advertisement. In the present case, no such rule has been brought to our notice. In such circumstances, the High Court could not have issued the impugned direction to consider the claim of the Respondent no. 1 on the basis of identity card submitted after the selection process was over, with the publication of the select list."
9. Learned counsel for the respondent-Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission further relied on judgment in the case of "Rohan Thakur Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors" reported in 2019(3) JBCJ 44 (HC) particularly para 6 which is quoted here-in-below:-
"6. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand submitted that the Advertisement No. 10 of 2015 specifically mentioned requirement of certificate issued by competent authority like Deputy Commissioner/Sub Divisional Officer issuing caste certificate which could be utilized for availing reservation in this examination. Since the application was invited through online process and the requirement was to upload self-attested scanned copy of certificate including certificates for availing reservation otherwise the candidate would be treated under general category and once the online application has been filled up then no alteration would be allowed or granted after the last date of receipt of online application. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the decision relied on behalf of the petitioner was that reservation certificate were submitted after expiry of submission of application form but those decisions are not applicable in present case as in the advertisement itself the requirement was of online submission of 7 caste certificate issued and uploaded upto the last date of submission of application form i.e 17.12.2015 and it was thus mandatory for the candidate to possess caste certificate in prescribed format issued by the competent authority. Admittedly, this petitioner was having a caste certificate issued on 29.08.2012 from which the petitioner could not derive any claim under the reserved category. Admittedly, the case is not of a late submission of caste certificate but is a case of not uploading the proper certificate which was not issued upto the last date of submission."
10. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission by way of referring the aforesaid two judgments submits that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the case of Anil Tanti is not applicable and no relief can be extended in favour of the petitioner in view of judgment passed in W.P.(S) No. 1630 of 2017.
11. In view of the above facts and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the caste certificate (page 36) which has been issued by the Circle Officer. Clause 8 (i) & 8(iii) of the Advertisement are very clear that caste certificate should be issued from the office of the Deputy Commissioner or Sub Divisional Officer of the concerned district but the caste certificate has been issued by the Circle Officer. The petitioner in his representation at Annexure-5 of the writ petition admitted this fact that this caste certificate was issued by the Circle Officer. In Anil Tanti Case the rejection of candidature was of late submission of caste certificate. In this case as petitioner in Annexure-5 of the writ petition has admitted that caste certificate was issued by the Circle Officer, in terms of Clause-8(i) and 8(iii) of the Advertisement, the condition of the advertisement has not been complied by the petitioner. Thus the 8 judgment rerlied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and accordingly, on the basis of that judgment, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. It is well-settled principle of law that every selection process has to be complied strictly in terms of criteria mentioned in Advertisement as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan and Others" reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85 which reads as under:
"29. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation , if exercised, has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality 9 contained in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."
12. The petitioner was well aware of the terms and conditions and he was need to be complied the same. The requirement of caste certificate was not issued by the competent authority as prescribed in advertisement. Thus, no relief can be extended to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, the petitioner has not challenged Annexure-7 which is notice dated 22.01.2019 whereby the reason has been assigned for rejecting the case of the petitioner as indicated at Serial No. 5 of the said document. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated- 2nd of June, 2020 Satyarthi/N.A.F.R.