Jharkhand High Court
Kumari Biplabi vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 4 January, 2016
Equivalent citations: 2016 (1) AJR 349, (2016) 1 JLJR 590 (2016) 2 JCR 133 (JHA), (2016) 2 JCR 133 (JHA)
Author: D.N. Patel
Bench: D. N. Patel, Amitav K. Gupta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.268 of 2014
Kumari Biplabi, D/o Late Lakshmikant Mahto, W/o Nawal
Kishore Mahto, R/o Village - Bhandro, P.O. - Kura, P.S. -
Pindrajora, District - Bokaro, at present residing at
Lowadih, Niche Kocha, P.O. & P.S. - Namkum, District -
Ranchi
..... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Development Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. -
Dhurwa, District - Ranchi
3. Director, Primary Education, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. -
Dhurwa, District - Ranchi
4. District Superintendent of Education, P.O. & P.S. -
Bokaro, District - Bokaro
5. Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission,
Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. - G.P.O, Ranchi
..... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the State : Mr. D. K. Dubey, Sr. S.C. - I
For the Respondent
No.5 : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate
---------
15/Dated: 04th January, 2016
Per D.N. Patel, J
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner (appellant herein), whose writ petition bearing W.P(S) No.7898 of 2012 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 03.12.2013.
2. Factual Matrix:
● A public advertisement was issued by the respondents in the month of September, 2002 for 2 appointment to the post of Primary Teachers in the State of Jharkhand.
● The last date to submit the form by the candidates was 30.09.2002.
● This appellant (original petitioner) pursued her B.Ed study in the year 1995-96 and appeared at the Examination in the year 2001, but, she failed in the B.Ed Examination in the year 2002. Again she appeared in the B.Ed Examination in month of October, 2003 and cleared the same and the marks-sheet was given to her in the month of February, 2004.
● Jharkhand Public Service Commission held the examination for appointment the post of Primary Teachers on 27.05.2003.
● The List 1st - result of the successful candidates was declared on 14.11.2003 whereas List 2nd - result of the successful candidates was declared on 18.08.2005, in which the name of this appellant (original petitioner) was included and she was declared a successful candidate in the written test, held by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. However, she was not appointed on the post of Primary Teacher and, hence, this appellant preferred a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No.7898 of 2012, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated
03.12.2013 and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner.
3. The arguments canvassed by the counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) :
I. Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted 3 that as per Rule 4 of the Jharkhand Primary School Teachers Appointment Rules, 2002, a candidate who had already taken training of B.Ed course was eligible to apply, but, before the said candidate is appointed as a Primary Teacher, the said candidate should clear the B.Ed examination.
II. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that this Rule 4 is duly complied with by this appellant because her result was declared on 18.08.2005 and she had cleared the B.Ed examination in the month of February, 2004 itself. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. III. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that Rule 4 has been interpreted by a Full Bench of this Court vide its decision, which is reported in 2008 (4) JLJR 184 and thus, the leaned Single Judge cannot overrule the Full Bench's decision. In fact the said decision is binding upon the learned Single Judge.
IV. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that even after 2005 in the later years also, several orders have been passed by the learned Single Judge in several writ petitions to consider the cases of the applicants in light of the aforesaid Full Bench's decision and, therefore, the panel of the selected candidates has been made operative even after one year is over. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition service No.7898 of 2012 dated 03.12.2013 deserves to be 4 quashed and set aside.
4. Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the respondent-State :
I. Counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that as on last date of submission of the application forms by the candidates i.e. 30.09.2002, this appellant (original petitioner) had already appeared in the B.Ed examination and declared 'fail' and this aspect of the matter is entirely different from the facts of the Full Bench's decision.
II. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent-State that after the examination is conducted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission in the month of May, 2003 for the post of Primary Teachers, this appellant (original petitioner) appeared in the B.Ed examination in the month of October, 2003 as she has failed in the earlier examination in the year 2001 and after List 1st - result was published on 14.11.2003, the appellant cleared the B.Ed examination in February, 2004. This facts are also entirely different from the facts of the case, referred to above and hence, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant.
III. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent-State that panel of the selected candidates normally remains operative for one year, even in absence of any specific rule, as per decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Jagdish Chopra, as reported in (2007) 8 5 SSC 161 (paragraph 9 onwards).
IV. This appellant was selected on 18.08.2005 and therefore, as on date, the said panel cannot be made operative.
V. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent - State that there is gross delay in preferring the writ petition by this appellant. After 2005, this petitioner has preferred writ petition in the year 2012 and no panel can be made operative after such a long lapse of time and lastly, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent - state that looking to Annexures - 13 & 14 of the supplementary affidavit filed by this appellant, it appears that while preferring an application for appointment to the post of Primary Teachers, this appellant has declared that she has cleared B.Ed examination in the year 2002 with 58% of the marks. This is a false declaration whereas, looking to the Annexure - 14 of the supplementary affidavit filed by this appellant in this letters patent appeal, it appears that she was declared fail in the B.Ed examination and again she appeared in the month of October, 2003. Thus, declaration made by this appellant (original petitioner) while applying for the post in question was false and, hence, also she cannot be appointed as a Primary Teacher. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant and, hence, this letters patent appeal may not be entertained by this Court.
5. Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the 6 Jharkhand Public Service Commission i.e. respondent No.5 :
I. Counsel for the respondent No.5 has adopted the argument canvassed by the counsel appearing for the State and has submitted that the public advertisement was given by respondent No.5 in the month of September, 2002 and the last date of preferring an application was 30.09.2002. This appellant had appeared in the B.Ed examination and was declared fail and, hence, Rule 4(GA) of the aforesaid Rules are not applicable.
II. In fact, this fact is most vital and makes present case different from the facts, as referred in the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court. Once a candidate appears and fails in the B.Ed Examination before the last date of submission of the form for the post of Primary Teacher, such candidate is not eligible at all. Even otherwise, petition has been preferred at a much belated stage and the panel cannot be made operative for all time to come. There is bound to be a definite life of the panel, which, even in absence of Rule is normally one year and, hence, also no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant.
Reasons :
6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this letters patent appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons :-
I. The appellant is original petitioner, who pursued her 7 B.Ed study in the year 1995-96 and after completion of training of one year, she appeared in the examination in the year 2001 and she was declared fail in the year 2002. II. Meanwhile, the respondent gave public advertisement in the month of September, 2002 inviting applications for the post of Primary Teachers and the last date for submitting the form was 30.09.2002. III. Thus as on date of 30.09.2002, this appellant (original petitioner) was declared 'fail' in the B.Ed Examination and, therefore, Rule 4 of the Jharkhand Primary School Teachers Appointment Rules, 2002 is not applicable, because this appellant (original petitioner) had appeared in the B.Ed examination and was declared 'fail'. IV. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission - respondent No.5 convened examination for the post of Primary Teachers on 27.05.2003 and the first result was declared on 14.11.2003 and till this date also this appellant (original petitioner) had not cleared B.Ed examination. V. This appellant (original petitioner) again appeared in the B.Ed examination in the month of October, 2003 and cleared the said examination in February, 2004. Thus, it appears that even as on last date of submission of form, this appellant was declared fail and had not appeared in the second time examination. Even after the first result was declared by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, this appellant has not cleared the B.Ed Examination. VI. It further appears that second list of successful candidates was declared on 18.08.2005 in which the name of this appellant (original petitioner) was mentioned as a 8 successful candidate and she had cleared B.Ed examination in the month of October, 2003, but this fact is not helpful to this appellant for the appointment to the post of Primary Teacher mainly for the reason that as on last date of submission of form i.e. 30.09.2002 she had appeared in the B.Ed Examination and was declared 'fail'. VII. Paragraph - 9 of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Jagdish Chopra, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 161, reads as under :-
"9. Recruitment for teachers in the State of Rajasthan is admittedly governed by the statutory rules. All recruitments, therefore, are required to be made in terms thereof. Although Rule 9(3) of the Rules does not specifically provide for the period for which the merit list shall remain valid but the intent of the legislature is absolutely clear as vacancies have to be determined only once in a year. Vacancies which arose in the subsequent years could be filled up from the select list prepared in the previous year and not in other manner. Even otherwise, in absence of any rule, ordinary period of validity of select list should be one year. In State of Bihar V. Amrendra Kumar Mishra this Court opined: (SCC p. 564, para 9) "9. In the aforementioned situation, in our opinion, he did not have any legal right to be appointed. Life of panel, it is well known, remains valid for a year.
Once it lapses, unless an appropriate order is issued by the State, no appointment can be made out of the said panel."
It was further held : (SCC p. 565, para 13) "13. The decisions noticed hereinbefore are authorities for the 9 proposition that even the wait list must be acted upon having regard to the terms of the advertisement and in any event cannot remain operative beyond the prescribed period."
(emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid decision, panel of the selected candidates shall remain valid only for one year even in absence of Rules and, therefore, also this appellant (original petitioner) cannot be appointed on the post of Primary Teacher. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition service preferred by this appellant.
VIII. After 2005, the petition has been preferred in the year 2012 by this appellant. Thus, there is gross delay in preferring the writ petition by this appellant and there is no reasonable explanation for the delay in preferring the writ petition at such a belated stage. IX. Looking to Annexure - 13 of the supplementary affidavit filed by this appellant in this letters patent appeal, it appears that she has mentioned in her application before the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, for the post in question that she has cleared B.Ed Examination from the Ranchi University in the year 2002 with 58% marks, whereas, looking to the Annexure - 14, she was declared fail in the year 2001 and she again appeared in the month of October, 2003 in the B.Ed Examination and has cleared the same with first class. Thus, there was a false declaration by this appellant (original petitioner) when she applied for the post of Primary Teacher. This false 10 declaration also makes her ineligible for the appointment to the post of Primary Teacher.
7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement, we hold that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant and we see no reason to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge.
8. Thus, there being no substance, this Letters Patent Appeal is hereby dismissed.
(D. N. Patel, J) (Amitav K. Gupta, J) Fahim -Chandan/-