Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand Academic Council vs Vandana Kumari on 13 August, 2018
Author: D.N. Patel
Bench: Chief Justice, D. N. Patel
1 L.P.A. No.105 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 105 of 2018
With
I.A. No.2025 of 2018
With
I.A. No.5810 of 2018
1. Jharkhand Academic Council, through its Secretary, having its
office at Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, P.O. & P.S.- Namkum, Ranchi,
Jharkhand
2. The Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council, having its office at
Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, P.O. & P.S.- Namkum, Ranchi, Jharkhand
...... ... ... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
1. Vandana Kumari, wife of Rajeev Ranjan, resident of New
Makchund Toli, PO- Chutia, PS- Chutia, District - Ranchi
... ... ... ... Petitioner/Respondent
2. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, HRD and Personnel
having its office at 1st Floor, project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District
- Ranchi
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand,
having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District - Ranchi
...... Respondents/Performa Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL
-----
For the Appellants: M/s. Anil Kumar (Sr. Advocate), Richa Sanchita,
Abhijeet Kr Singh
For the Respondents: M/s Shrestha Gautam, Sumir Prasad
------
11/Dated: 13 August, 2018
th
Per D.N. Patel, J.
1) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by original respondent Nos.2 and 4 in W.P(S) No. 6414/2017, whereby the petition preferred by respondent No.1 (Original Petitioner) was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 30 th January, 2018 and therefore, the respondent No.2 and 4 have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
2) Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that public advertisement No.47/2016 was issued on 30th August, 2016 for the posts of 2 L.P.A. No.105 of 2018
(a) Assistant Teachers, and (b) Urdu Assistant Teachers. The said advertisement is at Annexure-1 to the Interlocutory Application bearing No. 5810 of 2018.
3) It appears that now-a-days, preliminary examination is being conducted so as to eliminate the candidates and thereafter, main examinations are being conducted.
4) In preliminary examination test or elimination examination test, optical mark-sheets are being utilized by the Examination Conducting Body, which is popularly known as OMR sheets. These OMR Sheets are to be examined by the computers based upon mechanical fields, etc for which categorically, a condition is referred at page 58 as the Condition No.8 which reads as under: -
"8. Your candidature will be cancelled if any entry is found false / incomplete / wrong for which you yourself will be fully responsible."
(Emphasis supplied)
5) It appears from the aforesaid condition that if there is any error committed by the candidates in filling-up the circles by blackening them by pencil or by pen, their answer-sheets cannot be examined by computers.
6) It appears from the facts that in Column No.6, there was a need for the respondent (original petitioner) to fill-up the said column by blackening either of the circles i.e. whether this respondent (original petitioner) is appearing for the post of Assistant Teacher or for the post of Urdu Assistant Teacher. This was not done by this respondent No.1 (original petitioner) and therefore, her candidature cannot be accepted. This contention was not properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge.
7) It appears from the facts of this case that the candidate has to do some homework before coming to examination hall. We are not here to rectify the errors committed by the candidates especially in competitive examinations. For the slightest error, the candidate has to suffer. In competitive examinations, not only for the grip on the subject of a candidate will be evaluated, but, the accuracy of the candidates in filling- up the OMR Sheets will have a bearing upon this results. Competitive Examination is a multi-purpose examination. If the particular columns are 3 L.P.A. No.105 of 2018 not being filled-up, then the candidate has to suffer. We are not inclined to dilute Condition No.8 as mentioned at page no.58, which is a part and parcel of the advertisement.
8) Much has been argued out by the counsel for respondent No.1 (original petitioner) that in Column No.8, this respondent No.1 has correctly mentioned the name of the subject, from which, one can deduce that for which post the candidate has applied. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reasons that,
(a) Looking to Annexure-1 of I.A. No.5810 of 2018, especially page No.2 thereof, it appears that for the post of Assistant Teachers as well as for the post of Urdu Assistant Teachers, there is one common subject namely English and if this English subject is mentioned in Column No.8, then it cannot be said that the candidate has applied for the post of Assistant Teacher or for the post of Urdu Assistant Teacher, because English is a common subject.
(b) Column No.6 and Column No.8 are different. Respondent No.1's contention that as there is an existence of column No.8, there is no no need to fill-up column No.6. This advice of respondent No.1 for appellant No.1 is not accepted, because the candidate is not taking examination, but, the Examination Body is taking the examination.
(c) Patently and admittedly, error has been committed by respondent No.1 in filling-up Column No.6 and looking to the Condition No.8 attached with the advertisement, as stated herein above, the candidature shall be cancelled as per the condition. We are not inclined to dilute the conditions of the advertisement.
(d) A candidate, who has appeared in the examination and has accepted the conditions, now cannot challenge, the conditions of the advertisement.
(e) It has been held by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar reported in (2007) 8 SCC 100 at paragraph 18 as under:-
"18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the 4 L.P.A. No.105 of 2018 procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same."
(Emphasis supplied)
(f) It has also been held by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 15 at paragraphs 54 as under:-
"54. The Corporation did not violate the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The appellant having participated in the selection process along with the contesting respondents without any demur or protest cannot be allowed to turn round and question the very same process having failed to qualify for the promotion.
(Emphasis supplied)
(g) It has further been held by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission reported in (2011) 1 SCC 150 at paragraph 24 as under:-
"24. When the list of successful candidates in the written examination was published in such notification itself, it was also made clear that the knowledge of the candidates with regard to basic knowledge of computer operation would be tested at the time of interview for which knowledge of Microsoft Operating System and Microsoft Office operation would be essential. In the call letter also which was sent to the appellant at the time of calling him for interview, the aforesaid criteria was reiterated and spelt out. Therefore, no minimum benchmark or a new procedure was ever introduced during the midstream of the selection process. All the candidates knew the requirements of the selection process and were also fully aware that they must possess the basic knowledge of computer operation meaning thereby Microsoft Operating System and Microsoft Office operation. Knowing the said criteria, the appellant also appeared in the interview, faced the questions from the expert of computer application and has taken a chance and opportunity therein without any protest at any stage and 5 L.P.A. No.105 of 2018 now cannot turn back to state that the aforesaid procedure adopted was wrong and without jurisdiction."
(Emphasis supplied)
(h) It has been held by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi reported in (2013) 11 SCC 309 at paragraphs 18 and 24 as under:-
"18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome.
24. In view of the propositions laid down in the abovenoted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents."
(Emphasis supplied)
(i) Counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that to err is human and has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble The Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ashish Kumar Bharti and anr Vs. State of Jharkhand and others decided on 19th March, 2018 in Civil Appeal No.2951 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (C) No.29794 of 2016). We are not inclined to accept this contention mainly for the reasons that,
(i) In the advertisement, there is a condition No.8 as stated herein above and we cannot dilute the said condition.
(ii) Column No.6 and Column No.8 are entirely different, which are at page No.57 of the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal.
(iii) Looking to Annexure 1 of I.A. No.5810 of 2018, especially page No.2 thereof, English is a common subject for the post of Assistant Teachers as well as for the post of Urdu Assistant Teachers and, therefore, merely because 6 L.P.A. No.105 of 2018 Column No.8 is correctly filled up, that does not mean that there was no need of column No.6 (at page 57).
The aforesaid facts make the present case different from the facts of the aforesaid decision, upon which the reliance is placed by counsel for respondent No.1. This judgment is absolutely of no help to the respondent No.1 (original petitioner).
9) In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements and also looking to the decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.55 of 2017 judgment dated 20 th September, 2017, which is reported in 2018(1) JBCJ 663, it appears that Column No.6 was not filled up and the Condition No.8 of the advertisement has been violated. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. We, therefore, quash and set aside the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.6414 of 2017 judgment dated 30th January, 2018.
10) This Letters Patent Appeal is allowed , with no order as to costs.
11) In view of the disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal, both the aforesaid Interlocutory Applications also stand disposed of.
(Aniruddha Bose, C.J.)
Manoj/ (D. N. Patel, J.)