AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pramath Patnaik, J
In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner
for being appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher and to forthwith appoint him on the post in question.
The factual exposition, as delineated in the writ application, in brief is that an advertisement, being Advertisement No. 117 of 2011 was published
inviting applications for appointment on the post of ‘Post Graduate Teachers’, in which, 50 % posts were reserved for the teachers working in
government secondary schools and rest 50% posts to be filled through direct recruitment. It has been averred that petitioner, who was working as
‘Assistant Teacher’ Social Science (Geography) having qualification of M.A with B.Ed in Non-Government Minority School applied against
50% posts reserved for government teachers. It has further been averred that after scrutiny of forms Admit Card was issued and thereafter the
petitioner appeared in the examination, in which, he secured 59.50 marks in Paper I and 180 marks in Paper II and he was expecting for issuance of
letter of appointment as he secured more marks than the last selected candidate in which category the petitioner belongs, but, when the same was not
issued in favour of the petitioner, he enquired the matter whereupon he was informed that since he is working as a Primary Teacher in a
NonGovernment Minority School, appointment letter cannot be issued in his favour.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal, Associate Counsel to learned S.C. V for the
respondents-State and Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-JAC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that service conditions as well as pay and allowances of the teachers working in Government Schools
and Non-Government Minority Schools are exactly same and similar rather to say the appointment of the petitioner has also been made after due
approval of the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand. It has further been submitted that benefit of pension, gratuity and G.P.F
has also been extended to the teachers working in Minority Schools and even teachers working in Non-Government Minority Schools are engaged in
election duty at par with the Government teachers; hence the ground that since the petitioner is working in Nongovernment Minority School, he cannot
be equated with Government Secondary School Teachers, is discriminatory and further depriving the petitioner from being appointed on the post of
Post Graduate Teacher, when he is otherwise eligible, having secured more marks than the marks secured by the last selected candidate in Geography
stream, merely on the ground that he is working as an Assistant Teacher in Non-Government School is grossly illegal action on the part of the
respondent-State. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has been made to suffer only because he has not given true disclosure of the fact
that he is working in Minority School and getting benefits at par with the Government School Teachers. It has further been submitted even otherwise
also the petitioner secured more marks than the last selected candidate of rest 50 % posts of open competitive examination but that fact has been
completely ignored by the respondents only to deprive the petitioner from being appointed on the post in question solely on the ground that he is
working under the Minority School. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it is true that scale in which the petitioner is working is
managed by its own Managing Committee but there is direct control of the Director, Secondary Education under the Human Resources Development
Department.
As against this, learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that Government has framed policy regarding the eligibility of appointment of
teachers in + 2 High School vide letter dated 05.07.2011 wherein at paragraph 3, it is clearly mentioned that 50 % of the total vacant posts of Post
Graduate Teachers will be filled up by the teachers of Government Secondary Schools, who are possessing requisite qualifications. So far petitioner is
concerned, he is working in Non-Government Minority School, which is run and managed by its own Managing Committee, hence petitioner cannot
claim parity with the teachers of Government School. It has further been submitted that in the Advertisement itself, it has been clearly mentioned that
50 % posts are reserved for teachers working in Government Secondary Schools. Moreover, appointment of post graduate teacher in +2 schools was
concluded on the basis of departmental letter dated 05.07.2011, hence, at this belated stage no relief can be granted to the petitioner. It has further
been averred that in the new Rules of appointment also, in particular in Rule 9 (i) of the notification dated 4.09.2012, it has implicitly been mentioned
that 50 % posts will be filled up by the eligible teachers of the government secondary schools. On the basis of said Rule, second lot of recruitment of
Post Graduate Teachers has also been done on the recommendation of Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission.Â
Learned counsel for the respondents-JAC supplementing the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondentsState submitted that
petitioner is an Assistant Teacher in St. Joseph High School, Mahuwatant, Latehar, which is an aided minority school, which gets aid from the
government and it is not a government school. For the said reason, the petitioner has been treated under the category of unreserved candidates. It has
been submitted that so far issuance of admit card to the petitioner is concerned, the same was done because of the wrong information given by the
petitioner in his Application Form where he mentioned that he is employed as Teacher in Government Secondary School, but, subsequently when it
was found that petitioner is not a government teacher, his candidature was cancelled.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not been
able to make out a case for interference for the following facts and reasons:
 (i).On plain reading of impugned Advertisement at Annexure 7 to the writ application, it appears that 50 % posts were reserved for the teachers
working in government secondary schools and rest 50% posts to be filled through direct recruitment. Admittedly, the petitioner, who was working as
Assistant Teacher in St. Joseph High School, Mahuwatant, Latehar, which is an aided Non-Government Minority School and which gets aid from the
government, applied against the vacancy meant for teachers working in “Government Secondary Schoolâ€, as evident from the Column 12 of the
Application Form filled by the petitioner, which reads as under:
 12.Are you already Employed as Teacher in Govt. Secondary (High) School in Jharkhand ….. YES (If YES please writ YES otherwise leave it
Blank). From the above information furnished by the petitioner it is amply clear that petitioner with his full knowledge has written YES showing
himself to be “Teacher employed in Govt. Secondary (High) Schoolâ€.
 (ii).Hence, the short question that falls for consideration as to “whether the petitioner can be treated at par with the teachers employed in Govt.
Secondary (High) School�
  Undoubtedly the petitioner was working in Non-Government Minority School, which is only aided by government but it is managed by its own
Management Committee and its appointment is also done by that Committee and role of the government is only to approve the appointment on being
found to be valid appointment as per law. Hence, the question that has been framed by this Court is answered in Negative. Â
 (iii).So far second limb of argument of the petitioner that had petitioner been treated as a candidate against direct recruitment i.e. rest 50 % posts,
he would have been appointed on the post in question as he has secured more marks than the candidate who falls in his category, is concerned, this
Court is of the considered view that such argument is of no help of the petitioner as the petitioner cannot blow hot and cold in a same breathe by
staking claim for reservation under quota of 50 % being a teacher working in Non-Government Minority school on the one hand and on the other hand,
alternatively he can also stake his claim for rest 50 % category. Â Â
(iv).Here, it would be apt to refer Clause  (vi) of General Condition of advertisement, which specifically stipulates that if wrong information is
furnished by the candidates, their candidature shall be cancelled. On conjoint reading of advertisement, column 12 of the Application form and
Clause (vi) of the General Condition of advertisement, this Court does not find any illegality or impropriety in cancelling the candidature of the
petitioner thereby denying appointment of the petitioner on the post in question.
9. As a logical sequitur to the facts, reasons and discussions made in the forgoing paragraphs and conclusions arrived at by this Court, no relief can
be granted to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.Â
     Â