Archana Ghosh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha

¶1

1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No.4258 of 2019

¶3

¶4

Archana Ghosh .......... Petitioner.

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶7

Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶8

Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi, through its Chairman.

¶9

Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi.

¶10

.......... Respondents.

¶11

¶12

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶13

----For the Petitioner : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate Mrs. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Mohini Gupta, A.C. to S.C.(Mines)-I For JSSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate ----- Order No.03 Date: 02.01.2024

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the important notice no.3345 dated 29^th April, 2019 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued by the Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi- respondent no.4, whereby the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher in the subject Physical Education for Giridih district has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to produce the original record of the petitioner in connection with Advertisement no.21 of 2016. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to consider her candidature and recommend her name for appointment on the post of teacher in the said subject for Giridih district.

¶15

2

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice dated 29^th April, 2019 issued by the respondent no.4 is completely arbitrary and illegal, as it is neither practicable nor possible for any candidate to obtain two graduate degrees. Since the petitioner duly possessed the bachelor degree in physical education (three year degree course) issued by a recognized institute, the respondent-JSSC was duty bound to consider her candidature for appointment as graduate trained teacher in the subject- physical education.

¶17

Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC, submits that the present issue has already been decided by a Bench of this court vide order dated 18.04.2022 passed in

¶18

W.P.(S) No. 3081 of 2019 (Sanjeet Kumar Vs. State of

¶19

Jharkhand & Ors.) dismissing the said writ petition with observation that as per the advertisement, the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of ‘Trained Graduate Teacher in Physical Education’ was graduation degree in Science/Arts/Commerce as well as a degree in ‘Physical Education’.

¶20

Considering the said submission of learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC, it would be appropriate to go through the relevant paragraphs of the order dated 18.04.2022 passed in the case of Sanjeet Kumar (Supra) which read as under:

¶21

“5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for recruitment pursuant to Advertisement of 2016 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner had applied for being appointed as teacher in Physical Education, but the petitioner was not found eligible because allegedly he could not produce the required educational certificate.

¶22

3

¶23

The learned counsel submits that for a person who is to be appointed as a teacher in Physical Education, he need not have any graduation degree of B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. etc. and therefore, the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is not in accordance with law. The learned counsel has referred to Page No.73 of the writ petition to submit that the reason for rejection of the candidature of the petitioner has been mentioned therein at Column No. 11.

¶24

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer, has submitted that the advertisement is not under challenge and as per the advertisement, the required qualification was a graduation degree along with the Physical Education degree. He refers to Page 23 of the writ petition which is a part of the advertisement. The learned counsel has submitted that as the petitioner does not have the required qualification as per the advertisement, the impugned action of the respondents is in accordance with law and no interference is called for in the present case.

¶25

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the advertisement which is contained in Annexure-1 of the writ petition is not under challenge. As per the advertisement, the minimum qualification for appointment as a teacher in Physical Education is graduation degree as well as a degree in Physical Education. Admittedly, the petitioner had not produced the required graduation degree and accordingly, the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected. Further, this Court finds that the aforesaid requirement as per the advertisement is not under challenge in the present case.

¶26

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that the petitioner does not possess the necessary educational qualification as mentioned in the advertisement itself, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned action of the respondents and accordingly, no interference is called for in the present writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.”

¶27

In the present cases also, the petitioner has not challenged the

¶28

terms of advertisement wherein the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of ‘Trained Graduate Teacher in Physical Education’ has been mentioned as graduation degree in Science/Arts/Commerce as well as degree in ‘Physical

¶29

4

¶30

Education’. Admittedly, the petitioner did not produce her certificates of graduation in Science/Arts/Commerce, rather she only submitted her certificate of degree in ‘Physical Education’.

¶31

Hence, this Court is of the view that since the petitioner did not possess the essential educational qualification as mentioned in the concerned advertisement, there is no illegality in the impugned notice dated 29^th April, 2019 issued by the respondent no.4 whereby the petitioner’s candidature for the post of ‘Trained Graduate Teacher in Physical Education’ has been rejected.

¶32

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶33

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶34

Sanjay/

Archana Ghosh v. the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Archana Ghosh v. the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nehal Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mofajjal Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Kishore Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Health Medical Education and Family Welfare

Abhay Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Mantoo Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amardeep Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Primary Education and Literacy Department