Jharkhand High Court
Veena Kumari Nee Singh vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 2 February, 2015
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh, Aparesh Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 445 of 2013
------
Veena Kumari Nee Singh, wife of Shree Dilip Nath Singh, resident of village Bari Bazar, Barkandaj Toli, near Purana Gousala, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District West Singhbhum .... .... Appellant Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Director Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
3. Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Bargawan, P.O. & P.S. Namkom, District Ranchi
4. Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District- Ranchi.
.... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate
------
07/ Dated: 2nd Feburary, 2015 Per Virender Singh, C.J.: (Oral) Appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter to be referred to as 'petitioner' only) claims herself to be from B.C-I category. Pursuant to the advertisement bearing No.12/2008, issued by Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) for the post of Assistant Teacher, petitioner responded to the said advertisement and obtained 178 marks (60% approximately), but her name, when did not appear in the merit list, she approached the Writ Court through the medium of W.P.(S) No.7105 of 2012 in which the stand taken by respondents was that in terms of 2 circular issued in the year 2003, post of BC-I and BC-II was amalgamated and those have been put under one category only, i.e. OBC category, which fact is otherwise clear from the aforesaid advertisement notice. It was further the stand of the respondents that other candidates, who were securing more marks than the writ petitioner, were selected for the post and that 50% marks was the minimum qualifying criteria. This is how the writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by learned Writ Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner once again submitted that petitioner, belonging to BC-I category, was entitled to a different treatment and could not be put under OBC category. He submitted that State has come forward with a new circular whereby BC-I and BC-II category has been segregated from the category of OBC. He, however, is not aware of the date of issuance of that circular.
Mr. Piprawall states that no doubt, the State has issued a fresh circular as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but the same was issued somewhere in 2009 and the petitioner responded to advertisement issued in year 2008, therefore, the petitioner will not be in a position to derive any benefit from the circular of year 2009. Mr. Piprawall otherwise submitted that the petitioner responded pursuant to the advertisement notice under OBC category only, therefore, cannot claim any benefit under BC-I category, therefore, her writ petition was rightly dismissed.
3
Viewing the present case from all angles, in our considered view, there appears to be no infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for our interference. Resultantly, the appeal on hand merits dismissal. Ordered accordingly.
(Virender Singh, C.J.) (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Birendra /