Disposed

Sreenibas Kumar Majhi and Ors. v. Human Resource Development

Jharkhand HC3 Nov 2022WPC/7580/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of three consolidated writ petitions challenging the primary teacher appointment process. Counsel withdrew prayers regarding quashing of specific memoranda and relief due to lapse of time. The Court left open the request to declare Rule 21 of the Jharkhand Primary School Teachers Appointment Rules constitutional and dismissed other prayers, resulting in the petitions being

What the court decided

AI extract

Sreenibas Kumar Majhi and Ors. Vs Human Resource… — Education and Admissions | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No.7222 of 2013

Arun Kumar Sahu

.……… Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶8

2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶9

……… Respondents

¶10

With W.P.(C) No.7250 of 2013

¶11

Anup Kumar Pradhan .……… Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶14

2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶15

3. Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, At+P.O.+P.S.+DistrictChaibasa

¶16

4. District Superintendent Education, West Sinhbhum, At+P.O.+P.S.+District-Chaibasa

¶17

……… Respondents

¶18

With

¶19

W.P.(C) No.7580 of 2013

¶20

¶21

1. Sreenibas Kumar Majhi

¶22

2. Brihaspati Kumar Majhi

¶23

3. Prakash Kumar Mahto

¶24

.……… Petitioners

¶25

Versus

¶26

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶27

2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶28

……… Respondents

¶29

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶30

--------For the Petitioners : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, GA-II

¶31

¶32

[In W.P.(C) No.7222/2013] : Mr. Manav Poddar, AC to AAG-I [In W.P.(C) No.7250/2013] : Mr. Raunak Sahay, AC to GP-V [In W.P.(C) No.7580/2013]

¶33

¶34

09/03.11.2022 These writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the following reliefs have been sought

¶35

for:-

¶36

I. For issuance of an appropriate Writ(s), Direction(s), Order(s) for quashing of memo no.8/n.2-07/2013-2087 dated 12.11.2013 (Annexure-1) as also the advertisement dated 15.11.2013 [In W.P.(C) No.7250/2013] whereby and where under the applications have been invited from class 1 to 5, limiting the opportunity for such appointment only to the candidates holding two years diploma course in elementary education though the specific provision has been made in the NCTE guidelines dated 23.08.2010 providing an opportunity to such appointment to the B.Ed. degree holder under clause 3(a) that the candidates with B.A./B.Sc. with at list 50% marks and B.Ed. qualification shall also be eligible for appointment for class 1 to 5 up to 1^st Jan., 2012, provided he undergoes after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6 month special programme in Elementary Education.

¶37

II. For issuance of an appropriates Writ/,Direction/Order commanding upon the respondents concerned to provide an opportunity to appear in the appointment process of primary teacher who are holding B.Ed. degree and have successfully passed TET examination held on 20.07.2011 and result was published on 15.10.2011 but due to the wrong and faulty process adopted by the authority concerned same was quashed and such eligible and successful candidates have been made deprived to appear in the examination for Primary Teacher though the NCTE has made guidelines making provisions for benefit of the B.Ed. degree holder.

¶38

¶39

III. For issuance of an appropriate direction commanding upon the respondents concerned to make a framework or rules for appointment of primary teacher giving effect to the beneficiaries clause given to the B.Ed. degree holder in the appointment of primary teacher in accordance with NCTE guidelines as the entire procedure for selection including the exam is arbitrary, unconstitutional, prejudicial, unfair, malafied as it destroys the constitutional scheme as provided under article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶40

IV. For issuance of an appropriate direction upon the respondents concern to appoint the primary teacher on the basis of competitive examination among the eligible candidates who having the minimum qualification fixed by the NCTE like Kendriya Vidayala Sangthan (KVS) and not on the basis of marks obtained in academic examination as there are candidates of different academic background like CBSE, ICSE, SANSKRIT BOARD, MADARSA BOARD, BSEB, JHARKHAND School Examination Board, JAC, Ranchi etc. whose marking pattern are different as it is generally known to every body that the marking pattern of CBSE, ICSE, SANSKRIT BOARD, MADARSA BOARD are very liberal in awarding the marks of the examination paper in comparison to the marking pattern of JSEB/JAC and BSEB which does not mean that the candidates of JSEB/JAC, and BSEB are not intelligent and as such the rule 21 of Jharkhand primary school teacher appointment rule 2012 is liable to be declared unconstitutional.

¶41

V. For issuance of an appropriate direction commanding upon the respondents to give the relaxation in the upper age limit to the petitioner who appeared in the TET examination-2011 and TET examination-2013 and declared successful but now due to the fault and latches of the authority concerned he is over age.

¶42

¶43

2. Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, has submitted that so far as prayer no.(i), (ii), (iii) and (v) are concerned, the same are not being pressed due to lapse of time, since, the recruitment process has already been completed way back, reason being that, the advertisement in question is of the year, 2013.

¶44

However, he submits, so far as prayer no.(iv) is concerned which pertains to declaration of provision of Rule 21 of the Jharkhand Primary School Teachers Appointment Rule, 2012, the same has been sought to be declared unconstitutional on the ground that while framing of the aforesaid provision, by which, the selection of teacher of one category or the other has been decided to be made on the basis of marks secured by one or the other candidates in their educational qualification and while doing so, the very consideration of assessment of selection of one or the other candidates, on basis of their merit position, has not been considered.

¶45

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the very object and intent of the Act, i.e., Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 has been carved out to provide upto mark education across the country, it is only possible, if the teacher in different categories will be appointed strictly on the basis of merit which is only possible, if there will be policy decision to select such candidates by conducting competitive examination.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that since the very issue of process of recruitment which has been commenced in pursuant to advertisement dated 12.11.2013 has already been concluded by issuance of offer of appointment in favour of successful candidates, therefore, the issue of validity be left open to be decided in appropriate case.

¶47

4. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the respondentState is having no objection to such submission.

¶48

5. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners, deems it fit and proper to render the prayer nos.(i), (ii), (iii) and (v) dismissed as not pressed.

¶49

¶50

6. So far as prayer no.(iv) is concerned pertaining to declaration of provision of Rule 21 of the Jharkhand Primary School Teachers Appointment Rule, 2012 to be unconstitutional, it is left open to be agitated.

¶51

7. In view thereof, these writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶52

8. In consequent to disposal of these petitions, Interlocutory Applications being I.A. Nos.571 of 2014, 634 of 2014 and 633 of 2014 also stand disposed of.

¶53

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶54

Rohit/-

Sreenibas Kumar Majhi and Ors. v. Human Resource Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sreenibas Kumar Majhi and Ors. v. Human Resource Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharat Chandra Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Union of India through Usha Kiran Kandulna Deputy Inspector General Adm Vs Aman Tiwary

Shah Sponge and Power Limited through One of Its Directors Namely Satya Nand Jha Vs Ms Oriental Insurance Co. Limited through Its Branch Manager

Arun Kumar Sahu Vs Human Resource Development

Anup Kumar Pradhan Vs Human Resource Development

The State of Jharkhand Vs Anirudh Prasad