Dismissed

Punam Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC12 Jan 2022WPC/25/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Jharkhand Public Service Commission's decision to not call the petitioner for an interview due to zero marks for teaching experience. The High Court found the work on a classwise payment basis did not meet the 'full-time' criteria required by the advertisement.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as without merit.

Punam Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand through… — Education and Admissions | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 25 of 2022

Punam Kumari

… … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary

¶7

The Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi through its Chairman

¶8

The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi

¶9

The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi 5. The University Grants Commission, New Delhi

¶10

…. … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Karamdeo, Advocate For the Resp.-JPSC : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate For the Resp.-UGC : Mr. Laxman Kumar, C.G.C. -----

¶11

Order No. 02 Dated: 12.01.2022

¶12

The present case is taken up through video conferencing.

¶13

2. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects, as pointed out by the office, are ignored.

¶14

3. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent nos. 2 to 4 to consider the candidature of the petitioner for calling in interview for the post of Assistant Professor (Backlog) for History subject under Backward Class (BC)-I category in different universities situated within the State of Jharkhand pursuant to Advertisement No. 05/2018 issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi (JPSC) as the petitioner has erroneously not been awarded 5 marks for teaching experience and her marks have wrongly been reduced for papers/books publication. Moreover, as per information of the petitioner, the candidates securing lesser marks than her have been called for interview.

¶15

4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to certificate dated 29.08.2018 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) issued by Prof.(Dr.) D.N. Ojha, the then University Professor & Head, Department of History, Ranchi University, Ranchi, submits that the petitioner was engaged for taking Post-Graduate classes in the second shift of the said department since December, 2015 till the date of issuance of the said certificate i.e. 29.08.2018 and hence, as per Schedule –VI(2) of Advertisement No. 05/2018, she should have been given full 05 marks for teaching experience instead of 0 (zero) mark. Though the petitioner was awarded 45.10 marks out of 85 marks, however had she been given 05 full marks in teaching

¶16

¶17

experience as per Schedule- VI (2) of the said advertisement, she would have secured 50.10 marks and thus would have been eligible for calling in interview. It is further submitted that by awarding 0 (zero) mark for teaching experience to the petitioner, she has been discriminated by the respondentJPSC depriving her of being eligible for interview for the said post. Moreover, the petitioner was also awarded lesser marks for papers/books publication though she deserved to be awarded full 05 marks for the same.

¶18

5. On the contrary, Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent-JPSC, on instruction, submits that the certificate dated 29.08.2018 relied upon by the petitioner claiming teaching experience was not considered by the JPSC as the said certificate does not indicate as to whether the petitioner was engaged as full-time ad-hoc, temporary or permanent teacher in a recognized University/College/Institution as was required under Schedule- VI(2) of the said advertisement. On perusal of the certificate dated 29.08.2018 issued to the petitioner, it would be evident that she was engaged to take Post-Graduate classes in the second shift of Department of History, Ranchi University “on classwise payment basis” with usual breaks. Such type of engagement does not find place in Schedule-VI (2) of the said advertisement so as to award any mark to the petitioner for teaching experience, hence she has not been awarded any mark for the same. Further contention of the petitioner that she has been given lesser marks for papers/books publication, is also incorrect. As per his instruction, the petitioner has been awarded full marks for the same. The petitioner has secured 45.10 marks out of total 85 marks whereas the last candidate called for interview under BC-I category has been awarded 48 marks and thus she has not been called for interview.

¶19

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ petition.

¶20

7. Schedule-VI(2) of Advertisement No.-05/2018 deals with the marking criteria for teaching experience which provides that 01 mark will be awarded for every 06 months for teaching experience or 03 marks for every 01 year for teaching experience- maximum 05 marks for teaching experience (as fulltime ad-hoc, temporary or permanent) in recognized University/ College/ Institution. On careful perusal of the certificate relied upon by the petitioner claiming teaching experience, it appears that she was engaged to take PostGraduate classes in the second shift of Department of History, Ranchi

¶21

¶22

University, Ranchi since December, 2015 till the date of issuance of the said certificate i.e. 29.08.2018 “on classwise payment basis” with usual breaks. Considering the said nature of engagement of the petitioner, I find justification in the stand taken by the respondent-JPSC that the said nature of engagement does not find mention in Schedule-VI (2) of the advertisement which only mentions the nature of engagement as full-time ad-hoc, temporary or permanent in recognized University/College/Institution for claiming teaching experience. Moreover, the petitioner has not brought on record any letter of engagement so as to substantiate that her nature of teaching engagement was either full-time ad-hoc or temporary or permanent. So far papers/books publication is concerned, she has been given full 05 marks in the same and as such, the claim of the petitioner that she has been awarded lesser marks appears to be unfounded. According to the respondentJPSC, the petitioner has been awarded 45.10 marks whereas the last candidate called for interview under BC-I category has been awarded 48 marks i.e. higher than the petitioner.

¶23

8. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.

¶24

Ritesh

Punam Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punam Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyam Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner Deoghar

Satyam Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner Deoghar

Deo Nath Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Agriculture Animal Husbandry and Cooperative Deptt

Anup Kumar Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Ram Lakhan Singh Vs the Ranchi Municipal Corporation through Municipal Commissioner

Ravi Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand