RADHEY SHYAM SAHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties for interim relief, which has been pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent-Jharkhand Academic Council (in short 'JAG') has initiated the examination for Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) and process of selection of teachers, under the Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, dated 5th September, 2012 (Annexure-4). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that firstly, as per the National Council for Teachers Education (in short 'NCTE') guidelines dated 23rd August, 2010 issued under the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, the examining body, the JAC alone has jurisdiction to formulate and lay down the Rules for conducting the Teacher Eligibility Test (in short 'TET'). The JAC has not prescribed the procedure and also did not lay down the instructions for conducting the TET examination. The Rules framed by exercise of power under proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the State pertains to only appointment of teachers and not for laying down the instructions and guidelines for conduct of the TET examination. It is also submitted that Rules framed by the State Government are in contravention of the guidelines given by the notification dated 11th February, 2011. The Rules framed by the State Government virtually will destroy the aims and objects of TET examination which is apparent from the guidelines issued by the NCTE dated 11th February, 2011 and particularly as made under Clause III. It is submitted that, if the examination will be conducted as per the Rules framed by the State Government, instead of achieving object of bringing national standards and benchmark of teachers quality, it will definitely reduce the quality of the teachers in the State of Jharkhand and will destroy the emphasis given by the NCTE for emphasis on teachers quality. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the State Rules, the language paper has been bifurcated in two parts; Language-I and Language-II. In paper-l, two options have been given to the applicants i.e., the applicants may choose either "Hindi and English" or the applicants, who are applicants for Assistant Teacher Urdu Post, they may choose "Urdu and English". Then in Paper-II (Language), option has been given in such a manner that it appears that the competition for the post of teachers is not for the State Level competition but it is a competition confined to the District Level within the State of Jharkhand. It is also submitted that there is no reasonable basis for prescribing the languages for the district. It is also submitted that for example in Ranchi District, three tribal language has been prescribed i.e., Kurukh, Kharia and Mundari and for this district regional language has been prescribed as Nagpuri, Panchpargania, Kurmali and Bangala. It is submitted that Ranchi is a capital city where the students may not" be knowing these languages. Therefore, virtually the more suitable candidate for the post of teacher as well as for the TET examination has been excluded by such bifurcation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Central guidelines has given option to select language out of several languages and gave opportunity to the applicants to choose any of the languages out of several languages. Whereas in the State of Jharkhand, there are several languages but no option has been given to the candidates to choose any language out of many languages. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that this Court on earlier occasion in the case of Anjutnan Taraqqi-e-Urdu Jharkhand vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in , : 2011 (4) JLJR 387 even set aside the entire selection process made against the post of 18,000 primary school teachers. In that writ petition, similar grounds were raised but that were left open because of the reason that entire selection was quashed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the restrictions imposed by the Rules framed by the State Government is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Learned counsel for the JAC as well as for the State Government vehemently submitted that the process of examination has been started back in the month of November, 2012 and the examination is going to be held on 26th April, 2013 i.e., just after eight days from today. Learned counsel for the JAC submitted that the appointments are district-wise and are in accordance with the Rules. It is submitted that petitioner though has challenged the validity of Rules on various grounds but the respondents are conducting the examination and the process is in accordance with law as is enforced and unless the operation and effect of the rules stayed, there is no reason to grant any interim relief. It is also submitted that prayer has been made after inordinate delay in such a matter for appointment of 25,000 teachers, where the candidates are approximately 1,90,000.

(3.) We consider the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. It is not in dispute that advertisement was issued by the respondents on 17th November, 2012 and this petition has been filed on 5th April, 2013. This petition has been filed after date of examination has been declared. Approximately 1,90,000 students have applied against 25,000 vacancies of teachers. Therefore, at this stage, we are of the considered opinion that the process of examination, which is going on, cannot be stayed and there is no justification for staying the process of examination. However, we are making it clear that in case, the writ petition is allowed then in that situation, the respondents may be liable to refund the entire examination fee or may be liable to adjust the fee against fresh application of the applicants, if after allowing the writ petition, the Court directs to adjust the fee against fresh applications of the candidates.