Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Mitshan Pradhan vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 22 June, 2015

Author: Shree Chandrashekhar

Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                W. P. (C) No. 1279 of 2015

      Mitshan Pradhan, S/o­ Biswamitra Pradhan, village­Joro,         
      PO­Gopinathpur, PS­Chakradharpur, West Singbhum
                                                   ...   ...  Petitioner
                            Versus
     1. The State of Jharkhand
     2. The Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi
     3. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi
     4. The Joint Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi
     5. The Director, Primary Education, Project Building, Ranchi
                                                     ... ... Respondents
                       ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
   CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

      For the Petitioner      : Mr. K. K. Srivastava, Advocate
      For the Respondents  : Mr. Md. Sohail Anwar, Senior Advocate
                                Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
                        ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­  

04/22.06.2015

  Seeking a direction  upon the  respondent­Jharkhand  Academic Council for publishing the result of the petitioner for  the Teachers Eligibility Test­ 2012, the present writ petition has  been filed.

2. Pursuant   to   advertisement   dated   18.11.2012,   vide  advertisement no. 95 of 2012 inviting applications for Teachers  Eligibility   Test­   2012,   the   petitioner   submitted   his   application  and   he   was   issued   admit   card.   The   petitioner   applied   in   two  categories   namely,   (i)   for   Assistant   Teachers   (class   1­5)   and 

(ii) for Assistant Teachers (class 6 ­8). The petitioner appeared in  the examination however, in the result which was published on  28.05.2013, he was declared unsuccessful.

3. Mr. Md. Sohail Anwar, the learned Senior counsel and Mr.  Saurav   Arun,   the   learned   counsel   appeared   for   Jharkhand  Academic Council. The original application and the OMR sheet of  the   Teachers   Eligibility   Test­2012   examination   have   been  produced in the Court. 

4.   The   learned   counsel   for   the  petitioner   submits   that   the  petitioner  though,  submitted  his  teachers  training  certificate   ­2­ within   due   date,   the   respondent­Jharkhand   Academic   Council  has refused to declare the result of the petitioner on the ground  that   the   said   certificate   was   received   after   the   due   date.   It   is  further submitted that the result for class 1­5 has been rejected  on a technical plea that the petitioner has overwritten the digit 3  in his roll number. 

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Annexure­3  series   at   page   no.   22   which   is   the   representation   sent   by   the  petitioner   vide   letter   dated   04.06.2013.   The   learned   counsel  appearing   for   the   respondent­Jharkhand   Academic   Council  submits   that   along   with   the   writ   petition,   the   petitioner   has  failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the plea that he  has submitted the teachers training certificate by the due date. It  is further submitted that the petitioner for class 1­5 examination  has filled the bubble wrongly in as much as, in place of digit 9 in  the roll number he had darkened the bubble for digit 8.

6. A perusal of the writ petition discloses that the petitioner  has appeared in the Teachers Eligibility Test, 2012 examination  as appearing candidate. The petitioner has produced photo­copy  of the certificate of diploma in primary education issued by the  Indira Gandhi National Open University however, he has failed to  attach the evidence with respect to submission of the certificate  through   speed   post.  At   this  stage,  the   learned  counsel  for   the  petitioner tenders and submits that the petitioner has sent the  certificate   through   speed   post   on   07.05.2013.   On   the   pointed  query, whether the petitioner has received duly received AD card,  the   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   submits   that   he   has   no  instruction in this regard. 

7. Considering the above facts, I am not inclined to infer that  the   certificate   sent   by   the   petitioner   on   07.05.2013   was   duly  received by the respondent­Jharkhand Academic Council.   In so  far as,  the  result  for  class 1­5 is concerned, since the petitioner   ­3­  wrongly   darkened   the   bubble,   the   learned   counsel   for   the  respondent­Jharkhand Academic Council has rightly contended  that the OMR sheet for the said examination has been rejected by  the computer. In view of the above facts, I do not find any merit  in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.

   (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Tanuj/­