MANOJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dtd. 11/7/2018, passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 546 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the writ petition was dismissed declining to pass any positive direction for appointment of writ petitioner to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Science) in terms of the advertisement with Regional Language-Angika under Visually Handicapped Category-General.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, as per pleadings made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated read as hereunder: The respondents-authorities, through Human Resource Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi issued advertisement inviting applications for filling up total vacancies of 3972 Trained Graduate Teachers (Class- VI-VIII) in different districts of State of Jharkhand. As per the conditions mentioned in the advertisement the candidates applying for the post/subject must possess degree of the concerned subject at graduation level. It was further mentioned that the candidates may apply from the district/districts in which the subject of their eligibility along with Regional Language vacancies are available and further they will be appointed on the basis of merit list prepared in consonance with the circular published by the respondent-authority. The petitioner, found himself eligible, applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers (science)with Regional Language-Angika under Visually Handicapped Category-General ('non-para')in the districts of Jamtara, Pakur, Deoghar, Godda, Sahebganj and Dumka in pursuance to advertisement Nos. 3/2015, 3/2015, 3/2015, 3/2015, 5/2015 and 2/6/2015 respectively. It has further been averred that disabled/Visually Handicapped persons were to be appointed in terms of circular dtd. 7/11/2007 published by the Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Advertisement/Circular, he ought to have been declared successful in all the aforesaid districts but declared qualified only in District of Dumka, Godda and Sahebganj. It is specific case of the petitioner that though he qualified in the districts of Dumka, Godda and Sahebganj and seats were vacant for appointment in visually handicapped category in Dumka district but his case was not considered for appointment on the post in question, therefore, he approached this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 546 of 2016 taking the plea that though he fulfilled all the requisite qualification for appointment to the post in question as per advertisement and in view of the circular of the State Government dtd. 7/11/2007 but the respondents-authorities have illegally and arbitrarily in complete violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India have not considered his case for appointment. It was further pleaded that as per information furnished under Right to Information Act by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka, vide letter no. 2263 dtd. 22/7/2015, Annexure 7/1 to the writ petition, wherein it has specifically been mentioned that four seats are still vacant in the district of Dumka under handicapped category, the respondents-State ought to have considered the case of the writ petitioner for appointment to the post of teacher for class VI to VIII under visually handicapped category. During course of hearing, the writ Court vide order dtd. 12/4/2018 directed the respondents to file additional affidavit stating therein as to whether four posts of Assistant Teachers in the category of disabled persons are vacant or not in view of Annexure-7, Page- 155, which is information dtd. 22/7/2015 supplied under Right to Information Act by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka. In compliance thereto, counter affidavit dtd. 10/7/2018 was filed by the concerned respondent- District Superintendent of Education, Dumka stating therein that the then District Superintendent of Education, Dumka had inadvertently given the information vide letter No. 2263 dtd. 22/7/2015 under Right to Information Act that four posts Trained Graduate Teacher (Science) under disabled category General are vacant, for which, the concerned respondent tendered unqualified apology to this Hon'ble Court. It was further contended that as of now, no seat is vacant under handicapped category in the district of Dumka. The learned Single Judge considering the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties dismissed the writ petition vide order dtd. 11/7/2018, which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal.

(3.) Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant has argued that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that even though the writ petitioner was meritorious in the category but he was not selected. He has taken the additional ground of not extending the benefit of reservation under Visually Handicapped Category as provided under 'The Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016', (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2016') wherein provision of 4% reservation is stated to be given to the disabled persons. He has further taken the plea that for extending the benefit of reservation to the extent of 4% to the disabled person under the Act, 2016, had the cadre strength of 'para' and 'non-para' been taken together, one vacancy would have arisen for the disabled person and if that would have been followed there was every likelihood of consideration of case of petitioner under the said category, but, having not done so, gross illegality has been committed. He substantiated his argument by taking the plea that in some of the districts appointments have been made taking total cadre strength of 'para' and 'non-para' teachers together and as such the act of the respondents-State by not following the said principle in the district which was opted by the petitioner is nothing but a discriminatory attitude so as to deprive the writ petitioner from getting appointment under the said category.