Petitioner sought direction to publish her result as a qualified candidate for Trained Graduate Teacher post, claiming rejection was arbitrary due to late residential certificate. Court dismissed petition, holding rejection valid as submission deadline was not met.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1609 of 2020
Kumari Sarita, aged about 42 years, wife of Shri Rammi Kumar Singh, Resident of 16A, Sanjay Path, New Subhash Colony, Dimna Road, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. – Mango, District – East Singhbhum
… … Petitioner
Versus
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
--For the Petitioner : None For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate ---
2. Learned counsel for the respondents are present.
3. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
“For a direction upon the respondents to publish the result of the petitioner as he has fully qualified in the examination, conducted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (in short “JSSC), for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher, in Govt. Secondary Schools through Combined Graduate Trained Teachers’ Competitive Examination, 2016 (in short CGTTCE – 2016) but only because he has not submitted his residential certificate, in accordance with prescribed in Advertisement no.21/2016, illegally & arbitrary his candidature was not considered”
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that admittedly the petitioner did not have the residential certificate in terms of the Advertisement No.21 of 2016. He submits that an opportunity was
2
also granted to the petitioner to produce the required residential certificate as per the advertisement but the petitioner did not produce the same and accordingly candidature of, interalia , the petitioner has been rejected vide Annexure -6 at serial no.5 at page 44. Learned counsel has referred to the page no.26 of the writ petition which is a part of the Advertisement No. 21 of 2016 which clearly states that the required certificate to be filed, ought to have been issued by the concerned authority prior to the last date of application i.e 25.04.2017. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the present case is covered against the petitioner by virtue of order passed in W.P.(S). No.4999 of 2019 dated 09.06.2022 passed in the case of Lovely Kumari Sinha whose name appears at serial no. 6 at page no. 44 of the present writ petition.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the respondents and after going through the order of rejection as contained in serial no. 5 at page no.44 of the present writ petition, this Court finds that the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on account of production of residential certificate issued on 05.03.2018 although as per the advertisement the residential certificate issued prior to the last date of submission of the application i.e 25.04.2017 were to be considered. Thus, from the records of the case, it is an admitted fact that the residential certificate of the petitioner was not issued prior to the last date of submission of application.
6. This Court finds that the present case is covered against the petitioner by virtue of order passed in W.P.(S). No.4999 of 2019 dated 09.06.2022 passed in the case of Lovely Kumari Sinha whose name appears at serial no. 6 at page no. 44 of the present writ petition wherein the said writ petitioner had applied for the residential certificate prior to the last date of submission of application, but the same was issued after the last date of submission of application. In the said background it has been held as under: -
“After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that admittedly the petitioner did not have the required residential certificate on the date of application in terms of the condition of advertisement, no relief as prayed for by the petitioner can be granted to the writ petitioner. Merely because the petitioner had made an
3
application for grant of residential certificate prior to the last date of submission of application, the same by itself does not satisfy the required condition of advertisement. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order by which the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed.”
7. Considering the fact that admittedly the petitioner did not have the required residential certificate on the date of application in terms of the conditions of advertisement, no relief as prayed for by the petitioner can be granted to the writ petitioner. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the action / order by which the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected.
8. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the candidature of the petitioner should be reconsidered despite non-submission of residential certificate by the prescribed deadline.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lovely Kumari SinhaFollowed¶6
W.P.(S). No.4999 of 2019
Kumari Sarita
The State of Jharkhand
The Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasa Department, Govt. of Jharkhand
The Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand
The Director, Secondary Education, School Education & Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand
The Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
