Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.10.2020 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6630 of 2017, appellant Jharkhand Academic Council (JAC)-respondent no.2 therein, is in appeal. As the undisputed facts unfold, the writ petitioner / respondent no.5 herein was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 15.02.2016 in the Madarsa Ezazul Uloom, Sursura Nawadih, District Deoghar pursuant to a recruitment exercise including examination held under advertisement dated 01.01.2016 and 05.01.2016. From the date of the advertisement till his appointment, 45 days were approximately consumed. However, the recommendation to approve his appointment was sent by the Management Committee of the Madarsa on 28.07.2016 as per the minutes at Annexure-9 of the same date. The appellant –JAC refused approval as the recruitment process was not completed within 45 days in terms of their letter dated 04.09.2015 bearing no. 3730 /15 (Annexure-1) whereby the respondent no.3, Secretary of the Madarsa was granted permission to undertake the recruitment exercise. As per the appellant-JAC, clause-3 in particular was not strictly followed, which prescribed 45 days period for completing the process. Clause 3 reads as under:

Learned Writ Court considered the undisputed facts of the case of the parties and found that the delay in seeking approval of JAC by the Madarsa was not fatal to the appointment processing holding as under:

“12. The respondent-JAC is directed to accrue the approval in favour of the petitioner as the appointment letters have already been issued and the Government has already approved and merely on the ground of 7 months delay, in absence of any statutory provision and mandatory in nature, the same cannot be denied. In view of the fact that the clause-3 is not statutory in nature and the letter dated 24.11.2016 has been issued on the basis of clause-3, the said letter 8 is not coming in the way of the Court to pass any order in the nature of mandamus.”

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-JAC submits that the delay in the recruitment process and seeking approval of JAC is the reason for rejection of confirmation of the appointment of the writ petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, however, is not in a position to dispute that clause 3 of letter dated 04.09.2015 did not specify any consequences for non-adherence to the time limit nor is there any statutory backing to the said condition. It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioner- the appointee was at any time not responsible for the delay. The appellant –JAC has not shown that the recruitment process suffered from any illegality or irregularity affecting the appointment process and is in teeth of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The appointment was undertaken after examination and pursuant to an advertisement to the public at large in which the writ petitioner and other eligible candidates participated.

Learned counsel for the respondent State is present and submits that the State does not have much role to play in the matter.

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We have perused the impugned judgment and gone through the materials placed from the record. The sole ground for refusing confirmation of the appointment of the writ petitioner is non-completion of the appointment process within 45 days as contemplated under clause-3 of the letter dated 04.09.2015 (Annexure-1) issued by the Secretary, JAC to the Secretary of the Madarsa. The said condition does not have any statutory backing and does not stipulate the consequences arising for non-adherence thereof. As such, the said condition cannot be stated to be a mandatory condition, which may lead to annulment of the recruitment process. The writ petitioner has not been responsible for the delay in sending the recommendation to the JAC by the Madarsa. No irregularity or illegality in the appointment process has been alleged or proved. The appointment process has been done after due advertisement and examination process. Learned Single Judge has taken a correct view of the matter and rightly issued direction upon the JAC to grant approval in favour of the appointment of the writ petitioner.

We do not find any error in the impugned judgment. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending I.A. is closed.