DR. RAKESH RAUSHAN vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents for appointment to the post of Primary Teacher

under Para Teacher Quota.Â

The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that an advertisement bearing Advertisement No. 01/2015, inviting

application from TET pass Intermediate Trained Candidates was floated by the respondents for filling up 525 vacancies of Teachers in Primary

Schools (Class I-V) for the district of Jamtara. As per the said advertisement, out of 525 vacancies of Primary Teacher, 50 % post has to be filled

up from amongst the Para Teachers working for last two years and 135 post are reserved for Schedule Tribe Candidate. Pursuant thereto, the

petitioner belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category and having requisite qualification, applied for the same under Pata Teacher Quota as he

is working as Para Teacher in Primary School, Pindargarhia, District Dumka since 24.07.2007. As per the recruitment process, merit point is given

to the candidates on the basis of average of percentage marks obtained in Matric, Intermediate and Training Course and adding the point of

TET and on the basis of merit point, candidates are called for counseling. Thereafter, selection is being made after scrutiny of the testimonials.

As per the prescribed criteria, the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 80 in the merit list and was called in the first counseling on 21.09.2015 and

also appeared for verification of his testimonials.Â

It is specific case of the petitioner that in view of the Government Policy, no waiting list was prepared, persons found eligible, were called for

counseling and were to be appointed as per the existing vacancies. Though, the name of the petitioner, who was a member of Scheduled Tribe

was included in the first merit list and was called for counselling and scrutiny of his testimonials, but no appointment letter has been issued in

his favour. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner represented before the respondents on 02.02.2016 with a request to take necessary steps for

appointment of the petitioner to the post of Primary Teacher as  his name was included in the first merit list. But, nothing has been done till

date and no heed was paid on the representation of the petitioner and as such, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this

Court for redressal of his grievances.Â

Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner fulfills all the requisite qualification and

accordingly his name finds place in the first merit list and is a member of Scheduled Tribe and there is a reservation in the appointment of

Primary Teacher. The respondents ought to have considered his case but respondents have illegally, arbitrary and with mala fide intention,

have not issued appointment letter to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that a direction may be given upon the respondents to

consider the case of the petitioner.

On the other hand, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents

vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and argues that the petitioner has obtained only 42 % marks and

last selected candidate in the category of Scheduled Tribe had obtained 45 % marks and as such, there was no occasion to offer the

appointment letter to the petitioner, may be the name of the petitioner was included in the first merit list but only empanelment in the merit

list does not give a right to the petitioner for appointment to the post of Primary Teacher.

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for

interference. Admittedly, as the petitioner has obtained less marks than the last selected candidate in his category, no occasion was there to

offer him appointment letter. There is no illegality or infirmity in not considering the case of the petitioner.

There is no merit in this case.

Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Â