BASANTI KERKETTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder a direction has been sought for upon the respondents to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Teacher (Sanskrit) pursuant to Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Examination-2016 in terms of Advertisement No.21/2016 since she has qualified in all events but could not properly been communicated for appearing in document verification procedure as per the date prescribed, her candidature was rejected as also for quashing the notice dated 04.02.2019 as contained in Memo No.1854 whereby and whereunder the candidature of the petitioner was rejected since she could not appear in the document verification procedure.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the Advertisement No.21/2016 which has been published for appointment of teacher in the examination conducted in the name of Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Examination-2016 conducted by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission in which she has participated and declared to be successful in the written examination, thereafter she was supposed to appear before the concerned respondent for document verification but could not be able to present herself on or before the date provided and in consequence thereof, her candidature was rejected against which this writ petition has been filed inter alia on the ground that the petitioner is living in the remote area of the district of Simdega where there is no facility of internet and therefore, due to the reason beyond her control, she could not be able to present herself on or before the date of scrutiny of its testimonials, therefore, the authorities have rejected her candidature, the same is nothing but an arbitrary action on their part since they have not taken into consideration the difficulty which is being faced by the candidates living in the remote areas and further the plea has been taken by referring to the condition as stipulated under condition No.4(kha) whereby and whereunder it has been provided that before cancelling the candidature, adequate opportunity of hearing to such candidates would be provided.

(3.) Mr. Sanjay Piprawal, learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission has vehemently opposed the ground and submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner by arguing that the terms of advertisement is binding upon one or the other candidates.