Jharkhand High Court
Priyanka Kumari vs Jharkhand Academic Council Ranchi ... on 20 November, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 3875 of 2013
Priyanka Kumari ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi through
its Chairman
2. Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi
3. Joint Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council,
Ranchi ... ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, G.P. V
Ms. Sweta Singh, J.C. to G.P. V
07/20.11.2013The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents for publication of the result of Teachers Eligibility Test (TET), 2012.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.
3. An advertisement was issued on 18.11.2012 inviting applications for appearing in Teachers Eligibility Test, 2012 examination. The petitioner submitted her application on 03.12.2012 and appeared in the examination on 26.04.2013. A press release was issued on 27.04.2013 requiring the candidates to produce a copy of the marksheet or certificate of B.Ed examination on or before 13.05.2013. The petitioner downloaded her B.Ed examination result for the Session 201112 from the website on 24.04.2013 and she sent the same along with an affidavit on 09.05.2013 addressed to the office of the Respondent No. 2. On 28.05.2013, the petitioner came to know that her result has been rejected. Immediately, the petitioner submitted her objection on 31.05.2013 however, the result of the petitioner was not published and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to move this Court.
24. A counteraffidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents taking a plea that the candidate who had appeared in the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) examination were required to produce marksheet/certificate of B.Ed. on or before 13.05.2013 and since the petitioner failed to produce the same by the said date, her result was rejected. In the counteraffidavit, the respondents have stated as under:
6. "That the petitioner has filed the present writ application for direction upon the respondents to publish the result of the petitioner for Teachers Eligibility Test, 2012 examination held on 26.04.2013 within a specified period and for any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
7. That at the very outset, it is stated that result of the said examination has already been published on 28.05.2013 showing status of the results of the petitioner.
8. That it is stated that the petitioner has applied in pursuance of the advertisement no. 95/2012 to appear in the TET Examination, 2012 Class6 to 8 level.
9. That the petitioner appeared in the said examination on the basis of the admit card bearing roll no. 21006043 issued by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi.
10. That the petitioner had appeared in the aforesaid examination as per the condition
(ii)(ga) mentioned in the aforesaid advertisement no. 95/2012 contained in Annexure1 to the writ application.
11. That it is stated that as evident from condition (ii) (ga) of the aforesaid advertisement no. 95/2012, those candidates who have completed training period and their training examination has been conducted, can appear in the TET examination. But it will be 3 mandatory for them to send training related certificate/marksheet in the office of Council through speed post within the period fixed by the Council, otherwise their candidature will be deemed rejected.
12. That it is stated that Jharkhand Academic Council issued Advertisement No. 22/2013 whereby it has been informed to send their training marksheet/certificate in the Jharkhand Academic Council till 13.05.2013, otherwise their candidature will be deemed rejected.
13. That from perusal of Annexure9 of the writ application, it is evident that the petitioner has submitted original marksheet of B.Ed Examination on 31.05.2013 in the office of the Council which is quite evident from the receiving of the Council on the aforesaid date."
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that from the condition in the advertisement it would appear that a candidate was required to submit marksheet/ certificate on or before 13.05.2013 and nowhere it has been mentioned that a copy downloaded from the Internet would not be accepted by the Council. He has further submitted that since the petitioner had sent her marksheet by speed post on 09.05.2013, which was received in the office of Respondent No. 2 on 10.05.2013, the result of the petitioner could not have been rejected by the respondents.
6. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned G.P. V, appearing for the respondents has submitted that a look at the copy of the marksheet, which was sent by the petitioner in the office of the Respondent No. 2, would indicate that the University, which has published the result, has made it clear that the result which was published in the website cannot be treated as marksheet and such marksheet was not to be treated for any official purpose. He 4 has further submitted that a candidate was required to submit marksheet/certificate on or before 13.05.2013, which the petitioner admittedly has failed to submit and therefore, the result of the petitioner was rejected.
7. On perusal of the documents on record, I find that in the advertisement, there is no provision for submitting the original marksheet/certificate. The advertisement is silent on the aspect whether a copy of marksheet downloaded from the website would be admissible or not. From perusal of the marksheet which was sent by the petitioner in the office of the Respondent No. 2, it would appear that the result of the candidates was published for immediate information of the candidates. I am of the view that such a procedure is adopted by the University/Institution with a view to make a candidate aware of his/her result so that a candidate may apply or appear for any ensuing examination. Moreover, the Jharkhand Academic Council itself has published the result on its website. In the present case, the original certificates submitted by the petitioner has not been disputed and it is not the case of the respondents that there is any discrepancy between the marksheet sent by the petitioner on 09.05.2013 and the original marksheet which was subsequently submitted by the petitioner on 31.05.2013. I am of the view that the plea taken by the respondents is not justified. The purpose of conducting the TET examination can be compared with eligibility test. A candidate is eligible for appointment on the post of teacher only if the candidate qualifies in TET examination. Therefore, if the result of a candidate is rejected on such ground, it would be against the principles of 'fairness in action'. The procedure adopted by the respondents is not fair and it would amount to automatic elimination of a candidate for his/her candidature for appointment on the post of teachers.
58. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The Respondent No. 2 is directed to publish the result of the petitioner forthwith.
9. In view of the difficulty faced by the students, I am of the view that the Jharkhand Academic Council should consider issuing a circular making the marksheet/certificate downloaded from the website, admissible and acceptable subject to verification with the original marksheet/certificate.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Manish