Jharkhand High Court
Kiran Majhi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 14 November, 2011
Author: Prashant Kumar
Bench: Prashant Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4607 of 2011
with
W.P.(S) Nos.4635,4671,4672,4277,4283,4746,4600,4806
4811, 4817,4859,5023,5027, 5271, 5293,5297,5355, 4609,
4643, 4861,5263 and 5357 of 2011.
-----
Kiran Majhi . Petitioner in 4607/2011
Somra Soren Petitioner in 4635/2011
Chanu Singh Majhi Petitioner in 4671/2011
Surendra Majhi @ Surendra Manjhi Petitioner in 4672/2011
Amrit Majhi & Ors Petitioner in 4277/2011
Saraswati Jamuda Petitioner in 4283/2011
Lalit Manjhi Petitioner in 4746/2011
Ranjit Manjhi Petitioner in 4600/2011
Ajit Majhi @ Ajit Manjhi Petitioner in 4806/2011
Brihaspati Hansda Petitioner in 4811/2011
Kartik Manjhi Petitioner in 4817/2011
Suchand Majhi Petitioner in 4859/2011
Kritan Manjhi Petitioner in 5023/2011
Sukram Majhi Petitioner in 5027/2011
Hopna Majhi Petitioner in 5271/2011
Lobin Manjhi @ Lobin Majhi Petitioner in 5293/2011
Iswar Murmu Petitioner in 5297/2011
Ajit Kumar Manjhi @ Ajit Kumar
Murmu Petitioner in 5355/2011
Bimal Kumar Majhi Petitioner in 4609/2011
Dasharath Majhi Petitioner in 4643/2011
Bihari Lal Majhi Petitioner in 4861/2011
Raiman Singh Mundri Petitioner in 5263/2011
Bir Singh Sundi Petitioner in 5357/2011
. Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Human Resources Development Department,
Jharkhand, Ranchi
3.Director, Primary Education, Human Resources
Development, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4.Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman,District Education
Establishment Committee, Saraikela .
5.District Superintendent of Education at Saraikela.
Respondents.
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
------
For the Petitioner : M/s. K. M.Verma, M.M.Sharma &
Lakhan Sharma.
For the Respondent : M/s B.N.Tiwary JC to G.P.III.,Nehala
Sharmin, JC to Sr. SC-II, V.K.Trivedi, JC
to SC-III, Rakesh Kumar Sinha, JC to Sr.
SC-I.
------
05/14.11.2011. In above writ applications, similar point has been raised, thus they are heard together and disposed of by this order.
2. It appears that Jharkhand Public Service Commission had issued an advertisement ( Annexure-3) for appointment of 9323 Assistant Teachers in different Elementary Schools including 391 Assistant Teachers of the schools situated in the district of Saraikela.
3. It further appears that petitioners of present writ applications, being matriculate and having teachers' training certificate issued by Adibasi Socio-Educational & Cultural Association, Chakulia, District East Singhbhum had applied for the said post. It is further stated that Jharkhand Public Service Commission after due scrutiny issued Admit Card to the petitioners and accordingly petitioners appeared in the written examination. Thereafter, petitioners were declared successful and their names recommended for appointment. It is stated that names of the petitioners of all the writ applications, except petitioners of W.P.(S) Nos. 4277,4283, 5263 and 5357 of 2011m were recommended for appointment as Assistant Teachers in Santhali Language, whereas names of petitioners of W.P.(S) Nos. 4277, 4283, 5263 and 5357 of 2011 were recommended for appointment as Assistant Teachers in 'Ho' language. It is stated that even after recommendation of the names of petitioners, the State Government is not issuing the appointment letter. Hence, present writ applications filed for issuance of a direction commanding the State Government to issue appointment letters in favour of the petitioners.
4. A counter- affidavit filed, in W.P.(S) No. 4607 of 2011, stating therein that advertisement was made by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission according to the provision contained in Jharkhand Elementary School (Appointment) Rules, 2002. It is further stated that according to said Rules candidates are required to obtain two years teachers' training from an institute recognized by N.C.T.E. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that Adibasi Socio- Educational & Cultural Association, from where petitioners obtained two years' teachers' training certificate , is not recognized either by N.C.T.E. or by the State Government. Thus, as per the aforesaid Rules, petitioners are not eligible to be appointed as Assistant Teachers. It is further submitted that Jharkhand Public Service Commission recommended the names of petitioners for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers either in Santhali Language or in Ho Language. But , from perusal of the advertisement it is clear that there is no advertisement for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in Santhali Language or in Ho Language. Thus, recommendation of Jharkhand Public Service Commission for appointment of these petitioners as Assistant Teachers in Santhali Language or in Ho Language is against the advertisement. It is then submitted that though there is recommendation of Public Service Commission but the same will not give any legal right to the petitioners for being appointed on the post of Assistant Teachers. It is submitted that the State Government has got power to refuse appointment, if it found that petitioners are not eligible for appointment.
5. It is state by Mr. K.M.Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners that in similar circumstances, with respect to the candidates of the district of West Singhbhum, this Court vide Annexures- 5, 6 and 7 had directed the State Government to make appointment within four months . Mr. D.K.Prasad, JC to G.P.III submitted that against the said order, the State of Jharkhand had preferred an appeal i.e. L.P.A.No. 328/2011 and the same is still pending. However, Mr. Prasad further submitted that the said order was passed on assumption that advertisement was made for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers of 'Ho' Language.
6. Having heard the submissions , I have gone through the record of the case. From perusal of Annexure-3(Advertisement), it is clear that the same was issued as per provisions contained in the Jharkhand Elementary School (Appointment) Rules, 2002(Annexure-B). Clause 4 of the said advertisement prescribes eligibility for appointment on the post of Assistant teachers i.e. candidates :- (i) should be citizen of India, (ii) should have passed matriculation examination or equivalent and (iii) should have two years teachers' training or B.Ed./Dip.in.Ed./Dip.in.Teach, C.P.Ed./Dip.P.Ed. Rule 2(Kha) defines training. According to the said Rule, a candidate is required to obtain training from a recognized Institution. It is stated in the counter affidavit that in the year 1993 Nation Council for Teachers Education(NCTE) Act, 1993 was enacted and after enactment of the said Act it is mandatory that all the Teachers' Training Institutes should obtain recognition from N.C.T.E. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that Adibasi Socio-Educational & Cultural Association is not recognized by N.C.T.E . Therefore, I find that any certificate obtained by the petitioners from the said Association will not make them eligible for appointment on the post of Assistant teachers in Elementary Schools situated in the State of Jharkhand .
7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no Institute recognized by N.C.T.E which imparted training for Ho Language or Santhali Language. Since petitioners were recommended for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in Ho Languate or in Santhali Language, therefore, the said criteria will not apply. Thus, petitioners can be appointed even without obtaining teachers' training from recognized institute. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments contained in Annexures- 5, 6 and
7. Aforesaid submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners appears to be mis-conceived. Ass notice above, there is no advertisement for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in Santhali Language and/or Ho Language. Annexure-3 clearly shows that advertisement was made for Assistant Teachers. It is also clarified in paragraph 23 of the counter affidavit that in Elementary Schools all the teachers are required to teach all subjects. Thus, the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted.
8. From perusal of Annexure-5, which is the basis for passing subsequent orders, Annexures- 6 and 7, it is clear that the same was passed on the assumption that there was an advertisement for the appointment on the post of Assistant teachers in Ho Language. This fact manifest from paragraph No.2 of Annexure-5 which runs as follows :-
" Petitioner is aggrieved on account of failure on the part of the respondents to give appointment as Assistant Teacher in "Ho" language for which he/she was duly selected and the Jharkhand Public Service Commission recommended his/her case along with a list of 187 candidates after due selection for the language "Ho" and name of the petitioner figures in the list."
9. As noticed above, advertisement was only for Assistant teacher. There is nothing in it to show that it was made for appointment of Assistant teacher of any particular language eigher in the district of West Singhghum or in Saraikela. Thus, the ratio of judgment contained in Annexure- 5,6 and 7 will not govern these orders, because said judgment based on mistake of facts.
10. It is well settled that even if the the name of a candidate recommended for appointment by Selection Committee or Public Service Commission the same will not provide any legal right for appointment on the post applied for. In this connection, I do no better then to quote paragraph 7 of the judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Shankarsan Dash.Vs. Union of India" reported in 1991(3)SCC-47, which runs as follow :-
".7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire and indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in the State of Haryana.v. Subhash Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or Jatendra Kumar v.State of Pubjab."
11. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, it is open for the State Government to refuse appointment of any candidate, whose name recommended by Public Service Commission for valid reason. In this connection, I find that petitioners are not eligible to be appointed on the post of Assistant Teachers, because they have not obtained Teachers' Training certificate from recognized Institute. Thus, I find that the State Government has valid reason for refusing appointment of the petitioners. Thus, petitioners have no legal right to be appointed on the post of Assistant teachers for which their names recommended by Jharkhand Public Service Commission. Consequently, I am of the view that no writ of mandamus can be issued commanding the State of Jharkhand to issue appointment letter in favour of petitioners. From perusal of Annexures- 5, 6 and 7, I find that the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been considered by their Lordship, thus, respectfully, I disagree with the said judgments.
12. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in these writ applications. Accordingly, the same are dismissed.
( Prashant Kumar,J.) Raman/