KOKILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions the petitioners were candidates under the Advertisement no. 27/11 for appointment of Assistant Teachers in the Primary School for Class -(I) to (V) under the Government of Jharkhand. It is also their case that before issuance of the said advertisement no recruitment to such posts were conducted after the last exercise was done under the advertisement of 2002. These petitioners and many others were eligible as per the maximum age limit prescribed under the said advertisement by cut off date 1st July, 2013. However, the entire process of appointment under the said advertisement and subsequent corrigendum issued thereunder were subject matter of challenge by certain persons in W.P. (S) No. 3099, 6592 and 6495 of 2011 (Anjuman Taraqqi -e -Urdu Jharkhand & Ors. (in W.P. (S) No. 3099/2011), Krishna Murari Prasad (in W.P. (S) No. 6592/2011) and Balmiki Chaubey (in W.P. (S) No. 6495/2011).

(2.) THE matter was considered by learned Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 22nd November, 2011 and accordingly the entire process of selection undertaken under the advertisement no. 27/2011 was quashed. The detailed reasons were recorded in the said judgment which has also been enclosed in the instant writ petitions such as Annexure -3 in W.P. (S) No. 7122 of 2013. While quashing the entire selection undertaken under the said advertisement, the learned Division Bench however proceeded to observe and directed that the State Government should proceed for appointment of the teachers de -novo by following guidelines issued by the NCTE and in accordance with the Rules for appointment as the NCTE has only prescribed the eligibility criteria, passing of TET whereas, the prescribed procedure for appointment on the post is in the prerogative of the State and within its jurisdiction. Learned court keeping into account that the session for schools will start from the month of July, 2012, gave an anxious consideration thereto and directed the Respondent -State to take steps that, all appointment can be made by the State Government before next session.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the background of the aforesaid facts, have stated that for no fault of these petitioners they are being denied valuable opportunity to participate and compete under the instant advertisement because of such age bar when the entire selection process under the Advertisement no. 27/11 was quashed by this Court on account of several lacuna, irregularities and illegalities found during the course of selection process. It is submitted that such a recourse on the part of the State would be rather inequitable and a wide category of eligible persons who could have given a larger choice to the State to appoint therefrom competent teachers for primary schools would be denied, if the plea of the petitioners is not accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that in similar circumstances in a matter relating to appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division), learned Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents to give relaxation to all candidates by fixing the cut off date as 31st January, 2003 in stead of 31st January, 2008 under the Advertisement no. 13/08 vide its judgment reported in : 2008(3) JCR 267 (Jhr.) in the case of Sanjay Kumar Sahay & ors. -Vs. -State of Jharkhand and others and other analogous cases. It is submitted that by the same reason and logic in the subsequent exercise for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under Advertisement no. 4/13 also the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhola Nath Rajak & ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in : 2014(1) JCR 616 (Jhr.) directed the respondents to reckon cut off date for calculating upper age limit as 31st January, 2009 in stead of 31st January, 2013. The learned Division Bench in those cases took into account that there had been no recruitment over a period of time and which could have rendered many aspirant ineligible on account of a bar of upper age limit. Learned Division bench also took into account that no harm would be done if the State has a wider range of candidates to compete for and get appointed the post of Civil Judge (Junior Judge) which is being made after considerable interregnum. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to provisions under 2012 Rules, specifically Rule 28 under Chapter IV, thereof which is in the nature of Removal of Difficulty Clause; Henry VIII Clause. It has been submitted on their part that the entire appointment process has yet not been completed and till date only a preparation of merit -list is being undertaken. The State should therefore be directed to relax the upper age limit or treat the upper age limit reckoned from 1st July, 2011, so that all such persons who were candidates under the advertisement no. 27/11 including the present petitioners may have an equal opportunity to participate and compete with other eligible persons under instant advertisement.