Jharkhand High Court
Manudeo Arya And Anr vs Human Resources Department on 15 July, 2015
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 1500 of 2015
...
1. Manudeo Arya
2. Niranjan Nirdoshee ... ...Petitioners
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary
Department of HRD, Dhurwa, Ranchi
2. The Secretary, Personnel, Administrative
Reforms & Rajbhasa, Ranchi
3. The Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi
4. The Secretary, JAC Ranchi ... ...Respondents
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
...
For the Petitioners : - Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Verma, Adv.
For the Respondent-State : - JC to SC-I
For the Respondent-JAC :- M/s Sohail anwar, Sr. Adv.
& Prashant Pallav, Adv.
....
03/15.07.2015Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners' result were shown on 24.10.2014 by the respondent- Jharkhand Academic Council in the website as having scored 212 and 240 marks in the General Category respectively. Results are enclosed as Annexures to the writ petition. These petitioners were called for with all their relevant educational certificate subsequently through Adv. No. 04/15 fixing the date of appearance on 29.01.2015 for the subject of Sanskrit. The Roll Number of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are 20301162 and 20301166 respectively. However, in the result published finally by the respondent -JAC on 18.03.2015, their names have not been shown and the names of person with lesser marks are shown to have been qualified and recommended for appointment. That is why, the petitioners have approached this Court. Admittedly they were candidates for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Upgraded High School as per the Adv. No. 93/11 in the subject of Sanskrit. The cut off date prescribed therein was 25.11.2011. Provisions laying down the eligibility criteria Ga (i) of the advertisement is quoted hereunder:-
^^¼x½ mi;qZDr dzekad 3 ¼laLÑr½] 4 ¼mnwZ½] 11 ¼Qkjlh½ ,oa 12 ¼vjch½ fo"k; dh fjfDr;ksa ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk ,oa vgZrk %& ¼i½ jkT; ljdkj vFkok dsUnz ljdkj }kjk LFkkfir fo'ofo|ky; vFkok cksMZ }kjk iznŸk vkpk;Z ¼lkfgR; vFkok O;kdj.k½ vFkok Qkfty ¼vjch ;k mnwZ vFkok Qkjlh½ dh fMxzh vFkok jkT; ljdkj vFkok dsUnz ljdkj }kjk LFkkfir fdlh fo'ofo|ky; ls dyk esa f}rh; Js.kh esa laLÑr ;k vjch ;k mnwZ vFkok Qkjlh ds lkFk U;wure 45 izfr'kr vadks ls Lukrd fMxzh/kkjh gks] fdUrq vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tutkfr mEehnokjksa ds ekeys esa U;wure izkIrkad 40 izfr'kr ykxw gkssxkA** They are in conformity with the Rule 4(3)(Ka) of the Jharkhand Nationalization Secondary School(service conditions) Rule 2004 "as amended". The amended Rule is also quoted hereinunder:-
^^5 >kj[k.M jktdh;Ñe wek/;fed fo|ky; ¼lsok 'kŸk½Z fu;ekoyh] 2004 ds fu;e 4 ¼3½¼d½ esa fuEuor la'kks/ku & mDr fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 4 ¼3½¼d½ dks foyksfir djrs gq, fuEufyf[kr izfrzLFkkfir fd;k tk;sxk] ;Fkk & 4 ¼3½¼d½ jkT; ljdkj vFkok dsUnz ljdkj }kjk iznŸk vkpk;Z ¼lkfgR; vFkok O;kdj.k½ vFkok Qkfty ¼vjch ;k mnwZ vFkok Qkjlh½ dh fMxzh jkT; ljdkj vFkok dsUnz ljdkj }kjk LFkkfir fdlkh fo'ofo|ky; ls dyk esa f}rh;
Js.kh esa laLÑr ;k vjch ;k mnwZ vFkok Qkjlh ds lkFk U;wure 45 izfr'kr vadks ls Lukrd fMxzh vfuok;Z vgZrk gksxhA fdUrq vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds ekeys esa mDr U;wure izkIrkad 40 izfr'kr ykxw jgsxkA** As per the aforesaid eligibility criteria, a candidate seeking appointment on the post of Sanskrit Teacher ought to have either obtained qualification of Acharya (Sahitya and Vayakaran) or should have been passed graduation in Arts exam in 2nd Division with Sanskrit Subject having 45% marks; in case of SC and ST minimum 40% marks were required. The petitioners are general category candidates.
From perusal of educational certificate relevant to which are from page 37 to 45, in respect of the petitioner no. 1, it is apparent that his Shastri Gurukul Scheme Para-3 result containing the detail marks card were published on 30.06.2012 from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak though exams are shown to be held in April, 2005. This result of part-3 exams is, therefore, also after cut off date for making application i.e. on 25.11.2011. The result of Acharya which is also annexed thereafter shows that he obtained the said qualification only on 27.11.2012 from Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi i.e. after the cut off date. The educational certificates of the petitioner no. 2 are enclosed as Anneuxre-5 series and in his case also, it is apparent that he obtained the qualification of Acharya on 30.06.2013 from Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Darbhanga and before that he had qualification of Shastri. Shastri qualification is not the minimum qualification required as per the terms of advertisement and Rules. Therefore, both the petitioners did not have the minimum educational qualification by the cut off date i.e. 25.11.2011. On verification of their educational certificates, therefore, their names were not shown in the result published on 18.03.2015.
The contention of the petitioners based upon the circular dated 29.03.1963 of the Education Department, Annexure-7 laying down the equivalence of Sanskrit degrees to the qualification obtained through general extreme of education i.e. I.A./B.A./M.A. and office memorandum dated 04.05.1998 Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), Government of India, would not improve the case of the petitioner as the terms of advertisement laying down educational criteria are based upon the statutory Rule 4(3)(Ka) framed by the respondent- Government of Jharkhand for the purposes of recruitment on various posts of Trained Graduate Teacher in Upgraded Nationalization Secondary School in the Government of Jharkhand.
Having considered the aforesaid relevant material facts on records and submissions of the parties, the petitioners have been found not fulfilling the minimum educational qualification criteria by the cut off date on 25.11.2011 under the Adv No. 93 of 2011 for being selected or recommended for appointment to the post of Sanskrit Trained Graduate Teacher in the Upgraded Secondary School. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/