KAMAL AHMAD ANSARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner has come before this Court for a direction upon the respondents to consider his case for appointment on the post of Graduate Trained Teachers in +2 schools of the State of Jharkhand in the light of Advertisement No. 74 of 2011 dated 23.7.2011, Advertisement no. 100 of 2011 dated 7.11.2011 and Advertisement no. 117 of 2011dated 24.12.2011 issued by the respondent no. 3, Jharkhand Academic Council.

(3.) THE facts, which are enumerated hereinbelow show that it is a hard case. As per advertisement dated 23.7.2011, Annexure4 being advertisement no. 74 of 2011, applications were invited from interested persons for recruitment of teachers in +2 schools in the State against which vacancies were shown against each subjects. 50% of the posts were to be filled up by direct recruitment in which category the petitioner claims to have been fallen. In the eligibility criteria, it is disclosed that as per the said advertisement, minimum 50% marks in the post graduate subject and B.Ed. degree from a recognized institution were required. The petitioner belongs to the most backward category for which, he has also enclosed the necessary certificate, which is Annexure2. However, the petitioner had not obtained the post graduate degree which he was pursuing from Nalanda Open University at that time when he made his application before the cut off date 16.8.2011. His result was subsequently declared on 21.10.2011, Annexure5, where he has secured 61.13% marks and has secured first class. Thereafter corrigendum Advertisement no. 100 of 2011, Annexure6, was issued on 7.11.2011 wherein the relaxation was given to the candidates of scheduled caste/scheduled tribes category that the minimum marks required for them to participate was 45% in the post graduate course. The second relaxation was granted to the candidates, who have appeared in B.Ed. Exam. The terms of said corrigendum indicated that those , who have been issued admit card, need not submit their applications once again as they would be allowed to appear on the basis of the said admit card. The petitioner had received his admit card, vide Annexure7, showing his roll no. 401199 in the most backward category showing date of exam as 30.11.2011. However, the exam was not held on that day and a further advertisement being Advertisement no. 117 of 2011 was published on 24.12.2011, Annexure8. Under this advertisement as per clause (cha) the earlier advertisements were superceded. It was indicated at clause (cha)(i) that such candidates who had made application under the previous Advertisement no. 74 of 2011 and 100 of 2011 and possess the necessary eligibility criteria and qualifications need not furnish their fresh application. The relaxation to the scheduled caste/scheduled tribes candidates as accorded in Advertisement no. 100 of 2011 and also to those who were appearing in B.Ed exam were again incorporated in the present advertisement. The exams thereafter were held on 15.2.2012 and results thereof were published. The petitioner got his result from website in which, he was shown to obtain 202 marks in the most backward category but was shown as not selected with a remarks 'M.A. Appearing'.