SHOBA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mrs. M. M. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner and J.C. to S.C. II for the Respondent -State. Petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for issuance of a direction to the Respondents for an order quashing the order dated -08.04.2004, issued by the D.S.E., Gumla to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi (Annexure7), whereby the petitioners claim for her appointment to the post of untrained Teacher, has been rejected. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a direction to the Respondents to reconsider the petitioners case for her appointment to the post of untrained teacher. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and by the learned counsel for the Respondents, it appears that in the year 1987, an advertisement was published in the Newspapers inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of the Assistant Teachers, both trained and untrained, in different Schools within the district of Gumla. The petitioner had applied for the post of untrained Sanskrit Teacher alongwith requisite certificates pertaining to her educational qualifications. The petitioner being a Graduate in History with Sanskrit subject and having also obtained the Post -Graduate Degree in the History, had considered herself to be eligible for appointment to the post of the Sanskrit Teacher.

(2.) VIDE Annexure -3, the petitioner was served with the appointment letter but there appeared an error in as much as, the petitioners name was mentioned in the list of Trained Teachers, whereas, the petitioner had applied to the post of untrained Matric Teacher. When the error was pointed out, the petitioners appointment was subsequently cancelled on the ground that she does not possess the requisite qualifications for her appointment as Trained Teacher. Disputing the aforesaid ground for cancellation of her appointment, the petitioner raised an issued by filing a writ application before this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 3109 of 2002, contending that the ground for rejection of her candidature cannot be considered as tenable as because such ground of disqualification was not stated in the original Advertisement. The contention of the petitioner was that Sanskrit was one of the subjects, which she had opted for Graduation and this aspect has to be considered by the concerned authorities of the Respondents. On considering the submissions and the prayer of the petitioner made in the aforesaid writ application, this Court after considering the rival submissions, disposed of the said writ application with a direction to the concerned authorities of the Respondents to reconsider the petitioners case. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a representation claiming her appointment on the basis of the appointment letter, which was issued to her. It appears that her representation was considered but was again rejected by the concerned authorities reiterating the same grounds that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification for her appointment as Sanskrit Teacher. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed another writ application before this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 3945 of 1999 (R), but the writ application was dismissed by this Court by the order passed on 02.05.2001. While recording the submissions made by the petitioner and the Respondents, this Court had observed that "the Advertisement having issued in the year 1987, the panel having lost its force and for the reasons stated above, I am not inclined to grant relief. The writ application is accordingly, dismissed . It appears that having lost her ground in the writ application but not content with the same, the petitioner filed a fresh representation before the concerned authorities of the Respondents, reiterating her demand for her appointment on the basis of the appointment letter, which was issued pursuant to the Advertisement published in the year 1987 and on the basis of the panel, which was prepared at that time. It appears that vide the impugned letter (Annexure7), the Respondents also reiterated the same grounds of rejection of the petitioners claim contending that she does not possess the requisite qualifications.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Respondent -State would seriously dispute this claim of the petitioner on the ground that the issue raised in this writ application was finally decided in the earlier writ application, and the judgment of this Court having not been challenged in Appeal, the petitioner cannot raise the same issue all over again in this writ application and, therefore, this writ application is not tenable. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent -State. The same issues, which were earlier raised by the petitioner and dismissed by a Bench of this Court in the earlier writ applications, cannot be allowed to be re -agitated indirectly by the petitioner on the basis of the same order passed by the Respondent on her subsequent representation which she had filed before the concerned authorities of the Respondents. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.