Dismissed

Suresh Rana v. Education

Jharkhand HC4 Feb 2020WPC/3421/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order terminating the petitioner from service as an Assistant Teacher, held that the recruitment advertisement did not demand a residential certificate for employment, and directed reinstatement with all consequential benefits within twelve weeks. The court applied the principle that rules of game cannot be changed after the game is over.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 06.05.2016 is quashed and set aside; the petitioner is directed to be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits within twelve weeks.

Suresh Rana Vs Education — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 3421 OF 2016

Suresh Rana

... ... Petitioner

-V e r s u s -

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶9

¶10

The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma

¶11

The District Superintendent of Education – cum – Sub-divisional Education Officer, Koderma

¶12

¶13

The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Koderma.

¶14

The Block Education Extension Officer, Jainagar, Koderma.

¶15

... ... Respondents

¶16

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR S. N. PATHAK

¶17

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. V.N. Jha, AC to GP-I

¶18

07/04.02.2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

Petitioner has knocked door of this Court with a prayer for quashing order dated 06.05.2016, Gyapank No. 838, passed by District Superintendent of Education – cum – Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Koderma. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.

¶20

The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that an Advertisement being Advertisement No.10/2015 was floated by the respondents and pursuant thereto the petitioner, being an eligible candidate, applied for the post of Inter Assistant Trained Teacher under Non-Para category in Upgraded Middle School, Katia, Jainagar, Koderma. Thereafter, he appeared in the further recruitment process /counselling and was declared successful and in the merit list his name is appearing at Sl. No.76 in Inter Assistant Trained Teacher under Non-Para category in upgraded Middle School, Katia, Jainagar Block, Koderma vide Gyapank No. 511 dated 01.03.2016. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher in the said school on 04.01.2016. It is further the case of the petitioner that after his appointment, a letter bearing No. 352 dated 11.04.2016 was issued to the petitioner for submission of detailed explanation with respect to his residential certificate, which was submitted by him at the time of making application for consideration of his case for appointment to the post of said post, within three days from receiving the letter. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply with the residential certificate at the time of recruitment process on 22.04.2016 with a request to give some more time to submit a fresh residential certificate as per instruction of the respondents, but the petitioner was terminated vide order dated

¶21

RC/

¶22

¶23

06.05.2016 without any rhyme and reason and ignoring the fact that the said certificate was duly issued by the competent authority and the same was accepted by the respondents at the time of scrutiny of the application form as well as counselling and that too without issuance of show cause. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

¶24

Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though petitioner had submitted residential certificate at the time of recruitment but the same has not been considered and case of the petitioner was turned down on the ground that the said residential certificate is not for the purpose of employment. Learned counsel emphatically argues that contention of the respondents regarding non-furnishing of the residential certificate is erroneous on the ground that already certificate has been furnished and it cannot be said that the said certificate is not for the purpose of employment as only one residential certificate is issued for every purposes. Different residential certificates under different heads for different purposes are not issued by the State Government rather only one residential certificate is issued. Relying upon the Judgment passed in W.P.(S) No. 631 of 2016, learned counsel submits that the issue has already been set at rest. Learned counsel submits that a direction may be given to the respondents to consider case of the petitioner and if residential certificate is the only ground for rejection, the same should be quashed and set aside.

¶25

Mr. V.N. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that though petitioner had submitted residential certificate but the same was not for the purpose of employment as per Rule 2012 and amended Rule 2015 – 16, and as such this writ petition has no merit and the same is fit to be dismissed.

¶26

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that candidature of the petitioner has been cancelled mainly on the ground of non-submission of residential certificate issued for employment purpose. The Advertisement No. 10/2015 never demanded any residential certificate issued for employment purpose. Even otherwise there was no occasion to the petitioner to submit said certificate as petitioner belongs to a General Category. The subsequent decision of the Government thereby changing the Rules is also not acceptable to this Court on the ground that the Rules of game cannot be changed after the game is over as has been held in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 540. In the advertisement it was not specifically mentioned whether a residential certificate has to be issued for the purpose of

¶27

RC/

¶28

¶29

employment. Admittedly, petitioner has submitted residential certificate which has been issued by the respondent authorities. The issue regarding residential certificate has been set at rest in a catena of decision. In the case of Nirbhay Prakash Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others in W.P.(S) No. 1833 of 2015, while considering various authorities in this respect, a direction has been made to issue appointment letter without insistence of any proof of forefathers of petitioner being a resident of the locality situated in the State of Bihar from the date of issuance of presidential order dated 10.08.1950.

¶30

As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncements, this Court is of the view that case of the petitioner needs consideration. Respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner and if there is no legal impediments other than residential certificate, case of present petitioner be considered for employment taking into account the residential certificate submitted by him. Impugned order dated 06.05.2016, issued under Gyapank No. 838, passed by District Superintendent of Education – cum – SubDivisional Education Officer, Koderma is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits, within a period of twelve weeks’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands

¶32

allowed.

¶33

RC/

Suresh Rana v. Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Rana v. Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anzora Kachhap Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prakash Turi Vs the Jh Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director

Awadh Kishore Mandal Vs the Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director

Pinki Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Om Prakash Vs Health

Suraj Mukhi Vs the State of Jharkhand