Anju Gupta vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Shubham Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Jharkhand Academic Council.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith take corrective measures and publish the result of the petitioner who in pursuance of Advertisement No. 93 of 2011, issued by the respondent-Jharkhand Academic Council.

Mr. Shubham Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an advertisement was issued being Advertisement No. 93 of 2011 for appointment of the Assistant Teachers in New Upgraded Secondary Schools of the State of Jharkhand in different subjects. The said advertisement is annexed at Annexure-1 to this writ petition. He further submits that in view of Clause Kha (ii) of the said advertisement, eligibility criteria/educational qualifications were prescribed for appointment of Teachers. The qualification for a candidate of unreserved category was B.Ed. degree from an institute recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). However, those candidates who have done their training and whose examination has not been conducted were also allowed to appear in the examination, provided that before publication of result they shall submit their result of B.Ed. before Jharkhand Academic Council. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was fulfilling eligibility criteria in pursuance of the advertisement and, therefore, she applied for the post. The Jharkhand Academic Council has issued admit card to the petitioner and the petitioner appeared in the examination. By way of referring Annexure-5 to this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an advertisement was issued being Advertisement No.54 of 2014, whereby, it was informed that the successful candidates are required to produce B.Ed. trained certificate by 22.09.2014. The petitioner has already provided the Certificate on the said date which was of the year 2013-14. He further submits that as the petitioner has already provided the Certificate, there was no need of deleting her name from the list of successful candidates.

Per contra, Mrs. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Jharkhand Academic Council submits that there was condition precedent in the advertisement that the candidates, who are applying for the said post, must have completed their B.Ed course for the session 2010-11. She further submits that the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is contrary to his own statement in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the writ petition. By way of referring paragraph 6 of the writ petition, she submits that the petitioner has admitted in that paragraph that she has taken admission in Prist University, Rajasthan for the session 2010-11, but she did not appear in that examination and in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that at last, she has taken admission again in B.Ed. course for session 2013-14 from Pandit Ravi Shankar University, Raipur, where she has completed her course of B.Ed. examination. She further submits that in view of Clause Kha (ii) of Advertisement No. 93 of 2011, it was required that the candidates must have completed B.Ed. examination for the session 2010-11. She further submits that this criteria has not been fulfilled by the petitioner and on verification the name of the petitioner was deleted that too on the direction of the State Government as there were certain errors in publication of the result.

In view of the above facts and as a cumulative effect of discussing the arguments on behalf of the parties, this Court finds that condition precedent was made in the advertisement that the candidates must have completed B.Ed. course for the session 2010-11. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has completed her B.Ed. course for the session 2013-14. Thus, the petitioner has not fulfilled the condition precedent in clause Kha (ii) of Advertisement No. 93 of 2011. In that view of the matter, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.