LAWS(JHAR)-2015-8-53

VEDANAND Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

Decided On August 18, 2015
Vedanand Appellant
V/S
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The name of present petitioner was not included in the result dated 18th March, 2015 published by Respondent -J.A.C. under Adv. No. 93/2011, though he claims to have secured 213 marks in General Category and his name was appearing in the result dated 24th October, 2014. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that Respondent -J.A.C. should declare his result and the Respondent -State should offer him appointment on the said post.

(2.) THE material facts which are required to be noticed for coming at adjudication of the present dispute is being noticed hereunder. The petitioner participated in the recruitment exercise for appointment in the subject of Sanskrit on the basis of his qualification Shastri obtained from Maharshi Dayanand University in the year 2002. Petitioner in his application form did not mention that he had obtained qualification of Acharya from the same University in 2004. The application of the petitioner is at Annexure -A. Petitioner however was shown in the result published on 24th October, 2014 by respondent -J.A.C. which complete list was withdrawn for revision of the results on account of certain lacuna pointed out by the Department of Human Resources Development. Petitioner claims that Shastri under which he applied is equivalent to graduation and therefore petitioner's candidature should have been considered by Respondent -JAC in terms of conditions of advertisement.

(3.) HAVING considered the relevant material facts and the submissions of the parties, it is clear that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Manudeo Arya and Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. dated 15th July, 2015 in W.P.(S) No. 1500 of 2015, where the provisions of same condition Ga(i) and Rule 4(3)(ka) of the Jharkhand Nationalized Secondary Schools (Service Conditions) Rules, 2004 "as amended" has been considered. The said judgment has also been relied upon in the case of Raghawendra Mishra (supra). For better appreciation, the operative portion of the judgment in the case Manudeo Arya is quoted hereunder: - -