Chanchal Kumar Mistry vs State of Jharkhand

D.N. Patel A.C.J.

This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner whose writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1197 of 2015 was dismissed by

the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 4th February, 2017, whereby, the prayer of this appellant for getting appointment on the post

of Assistant Teacher in “Oriya†language was not accepted by the learned Single Judge and, hence, the original petitioner has preferred the

present Letters Patent Appeal.Â

Reasons:

Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that public advertisement was

issued by the respondents in the year 2011 for the post of Assistant Teacher in “Oriya†language. The vacancies mentioned in the public

advertisement were 12. This appellant belongs to Backward Class Schedule-II category.

It appears from the facts of the case that this appellant has secured 195 marks, whereas, lastly selected candidate in General category has secured

205 marks and lastly selected candidate in Backward Class Schedule-I category candidate has also secured 205 marks. There is no reservation for

Backward Class-II category candidates and, hence, this appellant has not been declared as selected candidate in the revised result published on 18th

March, 2015.

It also appears from the facts of the case that there were total 15 vacancies in “Oriya†language, out of which, 12 posts were to be filled up by

direct recruitment, as per the Circular dated 17th February, 2009, which is at Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the

respondentState in the writ petition.

Now in the advertisement, there was an error to the effect that instead of 12 posts, there should have been 11 posts because 74% of 15 will come

to 11.25. Thus, instead of 12 posts, there were only 11 posts, which were to be filled up by direct recruitment.

So far as further bifurcation in reservation roster of 11 posts are concerned, as per the aforesaid Circular issued by the State Government, they are

as under:

For General or Unreserved   - 6 posts;

For Scheduled Tribe  - 3 posts;

For Scheduled Caste   - 1 post; and

For Backward Class Schedule-IÂ Â - 1 post.

Thus, there is no reservation for Backward Class Schedule-II category candidates, to which, this appellant belongs. In view of the aforesaid facts

and looking to the marks obtained by lastly selected candidate in Unreserved category and Backward Category Schedule-I category, it appears that

they have got higher marks  than the marks obtained  by this appellant and, therefore, this appellant cannot be

appointed for Unreserved category nor for Backward Class Schedule-I category. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the

learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant being W.P.(S) No. 1197 of 2015, vide judgment and order dated 4th

February, 2017. We are in full agreement with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge especially in paragraph no. 6 of the impugned order. We

see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal, the same is,

therefore, dismissed.