Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

Sanjeev Kumar Dinker vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 18 July, 2016

Author: Virender Singh

Bench: Virender Singh

                                 1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               L.P.A. No. 404 of 2015

Sanjeev   Kumar   Dinker,   Son   of   Shri   Ganesh   Ravidas,   presently 
residing at Maharshi Medni Nagar, Gali No. 2, Godda, Post Godda, 
Police Station Godda, District Godda           ...  ...      Appellants
                               Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2.   The   Principal   Secretary,   Human   Resources   Development 
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, officiating from 
Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi
3.   The   Director,   Primary   Education,   Human   Resources 
Development   Department,   Government   of   Jharkhand,   Ranchi, 
officiating from Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, 
District Ranchi
4.   The   Deputy   Commissioner­cum­Chairman,   District   Education 
Establishment   Committee,   Dhanbad,   officiating   from   Dhanbad, 
P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad
5.   The   Deputy   Commissioner­cum­Chairman,   District   Education 
Establishment Committee, Deoghar, officiating from Deoghar, P.O. 
Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar
6.   The   Deputy   Commissioner­cum­Chairman,   District   Education 
Establishment   Committee,   Hazaribagh,   officiating   from 
Hazaribagh, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Hazaribagh, District  Hazaribagh
7.   The   Deputy   Commissioner­cum­Chairman,   District   Education 
Establishment Committee, Giridih,   officiating from Giridih, P.O. 
Giridih, P.S. Giridh, District Giridih
8.   The   Deputy   Commissioner­cum­Chairman,   District   Education 
Establishment   Committee,   Koderma,   officiating   from   Koderma, 
P.O. Koderma, P.S. Koderma, District Koderma
9.   The   Deputy   Commissioner­cum­Chairman,   District   Education 
Establishment   Committee,   Godda,   officiating   from   Godda,   P.O. 
Godda, P.S. Godda, District Godda
10. The Deputy Commissioner­cum­Chairman, District Education 
Establishment   Committee,   Dumka,   officiating   from   Dumka,   P.O. 
Dumka, P.S. Dumka, District Dumka
11. The Deputy Commissioner­cum­Chairman, District Education 
Establishment Committee, Jamtara, officiating from Jamtara, P.O. 
Jamtara, P.S. Jamtara, District Jamtara
12. The Deputy Commissioner­cum­Chairman, District Education 
Establishment Committee, Pakur, officiating from Pakur, P.O. Pakur, 
P.S. Pakur, District Pakur
13. The Deputy Commissioner­cum­Chairman, District Education 
Establishment Committee, Sahebganj, officiating from Sahebganj, 
P.O. Sahebganj, P.S. Sahebganj, District Sahebganj
14. The Deputy Commissioner­cum­Chairman, District Education 
Establishment   Committee,   Chatra,   officiating   from   Chatra,   P.O. 
Chatra, P.S. Chatra, District Chatra
                                    2

15. The Deputy Commissioner­cum­Chairman, District Education 
Establishment   Committee,   Ramgarh,   officiating   from   Ramgarh, 
P.O. Ramgarh, P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh
16. The Deputy Commissioner­cum­Chairman, District Education 
Establishment   Committee,   Bokaro,   officiating   from   Bokaro,   P.O. 
Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro
17. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad, officiating 
from Dhanbad, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad 
18.  The District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar, officiating 
from Deoghar, P.O. Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar
19.   The   District   Superintendent   of   Education,   Hazaribagh, 
officiating   from   Hazaribagh,   P.O.   Hazaribagh,   P.S.   Hazaribagh, 
District  Hazaribagh
20.  The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih, officiating 
from Giridih, P.O. Giridih, P.S. Giridh, District Giridih
21. The District Superintendent of Education, Koderma, officiating 
from Koderma, P.O. Koderma, P.S. Koderma, District Koderma
22. The District Superintendent of Education, Godda, officiating 
from Godda, P.O. Godda, P.S. Godda, District Godda
23. The District Superintendent of Education, Dumka, officiating 
from Dumka, P.O. Dumka, P.S. Dumka, District Dumka
24. The District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara, officiating 
from Jamtara, P.O. Jamtara, P.S. Jamtara, District Jamtara
25.   The   District   Superintendent   of   Education,   Pakur,   officiating 
from Pakur, P.O. Pakur, P.S. Pakur, District Pakur
26.   The   District   Superintendent   of   Education,   Sahebganj, 
officiating from Sahebganj, P.O. Sahebganj, P.S. Sahebganj, District 
Sahebganj
27. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra, officiating 
from Chatra, P.O. Chatra, P.S. Chatra, District Chatra
28. The District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh, officiating 
from Ramgarh, P.O. Ramgarh, P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh
29. The District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro, officiating 
from Bokaro, P.O. Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro
                                               ...   ...      Respondents 
                                 ­­­­­
For the Appellant                   : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate
For the State                       : Ms. Ruchi Rampuria, JC to Sr. SC I
                                 ­­­­­

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
                                  ­­­­­
                th 
 06/Dated: 18    July, 2016
                           
 Per Virender Singh, C.J.

             Being   aggrieved   of   the   impugned   judgment   dated 
                                      3

07.07.2015

  of   the   learned   Single   Judge   in   W.P.(S)   No.   4935   of  2014   dismissing   the   writ   petition,   the   appellant­writ   petitioner  (hereinafter   to   be   referred   as   "petitioner")   has   preferred   the  instant appeal which is at admission stage but, with the consent of  the learned counsel for both the sides, we have taken it on board  for its final consideration. 

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by preparation of panel for  appointment   to   the   post   of   Inter   Trained   Teacher   under   the  provisions   of   Jharkhand   Primary   School   Teacher   Appointment  Rule, 2012. The case set­up by the petitioner before the Writ Court  is   that   in   his   mark­sheet   of   Intermediate,   the   aggregate   marks  indicated   is   440   whereas,   only   393   marks   obtained   by   him   in  compulsory   and   optional   subjects   i.e.,   RBH,   English,   Physics,  Chemistry and Math were taken into account ignoring 82 marks  obtained   by   him   in   Vocational   subject,   which   plea   was   not  accepted by the learned Writ Court on the ground that the marks  obtained   in   the   Vocational   subject,   in   fact,   was   an   additional  subject   and   therefore,   only   393   marks   was   obtained   by   the  petitioner   which   were   considered   in   terms   of   Rule   21   of   2012  Rules.  

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has once again  reiterated the same plea before this Court.  However, we are not in  agreement with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for  the petitioner.

4. We   have   gone   through   Rule   21(Ka)   of   Jharkhand  Primary   School   Teacher   Appointment   Rule,   2012   and   the  Intermediate   mark­sheet   of   the   petitioner.   For   the   Vocational  subject, he has obtained 82 marks out of which 35 marks have  been deducted as pass marks and remaining 47 marks have been  added to 393 marks making it 440 in total.  The petitioner, in any  case, was not aggrieved of the Intermediate mark­sheet prepared  in   this   regard   by   deducting   35   marks   out   of   82   marks   for   his  4 Vocational   subject   (ST).   What   appears   to   us   is   that   the   marks  obtained by the petitioner above 35 were added for the purposes  of   grading   whereas,   only   compulsory   subject   marks   were   to   be  counted for the purposes of appointment in terms of Rule, 2012.  The   other   argument   advanced   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the  petitioner that the petitioner had never filled up in his Admit Card  any additional subject and that the Vocational subject should also  be   considered   as   compulsory   subject   is   not   acceptable   to   the  Court.     Vocational   subject   was   to   be   taken   by   each   candidate  "compulsorily",   which   does   not   mean   that   such   subject   is   a  compulsory  subject  for the  purposes  of  counting  its marks with  other subjects.  Being that the position in the case on hand, we do  not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Writ  Court calling for our indulgence. 

5. The appeal on hand thus, merits  dismissal.   Ordered   accordingly. 

   (Virender Singh, C.J.)        (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Manish/Amit