Indresh Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand

Indresh Kumar Mishra and Ors. …Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of Jharkhand & Ors. …Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2220 OF 2022

Amit Kumar Vishwakarma & Ors. …Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of Jharkhand & Ors. …Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2219 OF 2022

Manish Kumar & Ors. …Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of Jharkhand & Ors. …Respondent(s)

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2221 OF 2022

Ram Byas Pandey & Ors. …Appellant(s) Signature Not Verified

Versus Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.04.13 16:58:54 IST Reason:

The State of Jharkhand & Ors. …Respondent(s)

1 JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgments

and orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Letters

Patent Appeal Nos. 796 of 2019 and 826 of 2019 by which the Division

Bench of the High Court has confirmed the respective judgments and

orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing

the writ petitions, the original writ petitioners have preferred the present

appeals.

1.1 The present appeals are of two categories. Civil Appeal Nos.

2217-2218 of 2022, Civil Appeal No. 2219 of 2022 and Civil Appeal No.

2221 of 2022 are with respect to the writ petitioners, who applied for the

post of Postgraduate Trained Teacher in the subject History and Civil

Appeal No. 2220 of 2022 is with respect to the original writ petitioners,

who applied for the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in the subject of

History/Civics.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as

under:-

2

Facts in respect of Postgraduate Trained Teachers

2.1 That the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and

Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand vide its letter dated 24.07.2017

forwarded requisition of the Department of School Education and

Literacy (Secondary Education Directorate) Government of Jharkhand to

the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as

“J.S.S.C.”) in terms of the Appointment Rules, 2012 for starting the

selection process for appointment to the post of Postgraduate Trained

Teachers in the High School of the State of Jharkhand for different

subjects under different categories.

2.2 That the J.S.S.C. after receiving the request, started the selection

process for appointment to the post of Postgraduate Trained Teachers

(P.G.T.T.) in the State of Jharkhand in different subjects, i.e., Chemistry,

Physics, History etc. Accordingly, advertisement No.10/2017 was issued

by which applications were invited from the eligible candidates for

considering their candidature for appointment to the post of

Postgraduate Trained Teachers. It was a combined advertisement for

the post of Postgraduate Trained Teachers for different subjects under

different categories. The advertisement provided the pay-scale and

minimum educational qualification for the posts. That as per the

advertisement, the eligibility criteria for the post of Postgraduate Trained

Teachers in the subject History was that a candidate must have obtained

3 a Postgraduate degree with 50% marks in the related subjects (in the

subject of History).

2.3 Pursuant to the advertisement, the respective original writ

petitioners applied for the said posts and participated in the selection

process. All of them submitted their application forms online and in their

forms, they also mentioned their respective educational qualifications as

Postgraduates in Hindi. They were allowed to appear in the

examination, who were also declared successful on the basis of their

performance in the examination. After publication of the result,

successful candidates were required to get verification of their

testimonials. At the time of verification of the testimonials, the respective

original writ petitioners submitted their Postgraduate degree certificates.

It was found that the respective original writ petitioners were having a

Postgraduate degree in Medieval History; Ancient History; Ancient

History and Culture; Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology etc.

respectively from different universities and as such they failed to submit

the Postgraduate degree in History in terms of the advertisement. It was

found that the respective petitioners had Postgraduate degrees in one of

branches of History in place of History as a whole and, therefore, show-

cause notices were issued to them by J.S.S.C. to show-cause why their

4 candidatures may not be cancelled as they failed to submit the certificate

of Master of Arts (Postgraduation) with the subject “History”.

2.4 At that stage, some of the writ petitioners filed the writ petitions

before the High Court and some filed writ petitions after their

candidatures were cancelled. The learned Single Judge dismissed their

respective writ petitions holding that the original writ petitioners were

ineligible for the selection and appointment as Postgraduate Teacher in

History subject. The learned Single Judge held that only those

candidates, who have obtained degree exclusively in the subject

“History” as per the advertisement are entitled for consideration for

appointment to the said post.

2.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgments and orders

passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petitions, the

original writ petitioners preferred letters patent appeals before the

Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned judgments and

orders, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the Letters

Patent Appeals and has confirmed the judgments and orders passed by

the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions, which has given

rise to the present Civil Appeal Nos. 2217-2218 of 2022, Civil Appeal No.

2219 of 2022 and Civil Appeal No. 2221 of 2022.

5 Facts in respect of Graduate Trained Teachers

2.1.1 That the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and

Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand by letters dated 23.09.2016,

04.11.2016 and 02.02.2017 sent the requisition to the J.S.S.C. for

starting the selection process for appointment to the post of Graduate

Trained Teachers in different subjects in different Districts of the State.

That the J.S.S.C. after receiving the requisition, started selection

process for appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teachers and

accordingly invited online applications for the Common Graduate Trained

Teacher Competition Examination, 2016. The advertisement

No.21/2016 was published by which applications were invited from the

eligible candidates for considering their candidatures for appointment

against the advertised posts. As per the advertisement, for the post of

History/Civics, the eligibility criteria was “Graduate with History and

Political Science but out of two subjects, one subject must have 45 per

cent marks and B.Ed. from institute recognized or B.Ed. from National

Teachers Education Council and for SC/ST minimum 40 per cent”.

2.1.2 The respective writ petitioners submitted their application forms

online for considering their candidatures for appointment to the post of

Graduate Trained Teacher (G.T.T.) for subject ‘History and Civics’. They

mentioned their educational qualification as Graduate in History and

Political Science in their online application forms.

6 2.1.3 On the basis of the declaration made by them in the online

application form, they were allowed to appear in the examination and

they were also declared successful on the basis of their performance in

the examination. After publication of the result, the successful

candidates were called for verification of their testimonials.

On the date of the verification of the testimonials, the original writ

petitioners submitted their certificates of Graduation degree. It was

found that they were having the Graduate Degree in Ancient History;

Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology and Medieval History etc.

respectively from different universities and they failed to submit their

Graduation degree in ‘History’ in terms of the advertisement. Therefore,

it was found that as the petitioners had Graduation degree in one of the

branches of the subject History in place of ‘History’ as a whole and

therefore, they were not eligible for the post of Graduate Trained

Teachers in the subjects of History and Civics as they cannot be said to

be having the requisite qualification in terms of the advertisement.

2.1.4 The show cause notices were issued to them to show cause why

their candidatures may not be cancelled on the ground that they are not

having the requisite qualification in terms of the advertisement and

7 therefore ineligible for the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in the

subject of History and Civics.

2.1.5 At that stage and after their candidatures were cancelled, the

respective petitioners filed the writ petitions before the High Court. The

learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions by

observing and holding that obtaining the Bachelor degree in one of the

branches of the subject, namely, History cannot be said to be obtaining

the Graduation degree in the subject of ‘History’ as a whole and

therefore, they are not eligible as they cannot be said to be having the

requisite qualification in terms of the advertisement.

2.1.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgments and orders

passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions, the

original writ petitioners preferred Letters Patent Appeals before the High

Court. By the impugned judgments and orders, the High Court has

dismissed the said Letters Patent Appeals. Hence the original writ

petitioners have preferred the present Civil Appeal No. 2220 of 2022.

3. Mrs. V. Mohana, learned Senior Advocate and Ms. Mandavi

Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective

appellants have vehemently submitted that the advertisements itself

were confusing. It is submitted that in the advertisements, the word

8 “History/Civics” has been mentioned, so far as Graduate Trained

Teacher is concerned.

3.1 It is further submitted that as such the original writ petitioners are

having the prescribed requisite minimum educational qualifications as a

Graduate in the related subject (the requisite qualification in History and

Political Science). It is submitted that on a conjoint reading of the post

which had to be filled and the minimum educational qualifications

prescribed, it is clear that Graduation in related subject with minimum 45

per cent marks was the requisite qualification. That all the petitioners

have obtained the Graduation/Postgraduation degree in Indian Ancient

History, Indian Ancient History and Culture, Medieval / Modern History,

Indian Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology indicating specialization

in the History subject. It is submitted that the papers pursued by the

petitioners are in “History”. It is submitted that admittedly, the

petitioners also studied Political Science in their Graduation. Therefore,

the respondents ought not to have rejected the candidature of the

petitioners on the ground that they did not have the requisite

qualifications as per the advertisement.

3.2 It is further submitted that the High Court has not properly

appreciated the fact that so far as G.T.T. candidates are concerned, no

Expert Committee was constituted to consider the educational

9 qualifications obtained by them. It is submitted that as such the Expert

Committee considered the Postgraduate degrees obtained by the

respective candidates, who applied for the post of P.G.T.T. (History).

3.3 It is further submitted that even the so-called Committee

comprised only of the local Institutions and persons from the State of

Jharkhand alone. That the so-called Expert Committee was never

constituted in the case of G.T.T. candidates and it was restricted to

considering the cases of P.G.T.T. candidates.

3.4 Mrs. Mohana, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the

petitioners - G.T.T. candidates has further submitted that even the case

of G.T.T. cannot be compared with that of P.G.T.T. candidates. It is

submitted that the minimum eligibility requirement in both were

completely different. Applications for P.G.T.T. candidates were invited

only to teach “History” and the requirement was degree in the related

subject. On the other hand, G.T.T. candidates were required for teaching

“History/Civics” and the minimum eligibility is also different.

3.5 It is further submitted that in the present case, the principle of

legitimate expectation ought to be invoked in view of the fact that in the

identically worded previous advertisements, the candidates having

10 similar / identical qualifications as that of the petitioners were selected

and are working.

3.6 It is further submitted that the Hon’ble High Court ought to have

appreciated that the other States and the instrumentalities of those

States recognize the degrees which the petitioners are having, for the

concerned post/subject. It is submitted that even Kendriya Vidyalaya,

which is controlled by the Central Government appoints candidates

possessing Graduation degree in Ancient Indian History / Ancient Indian

History and Archaeology / Medieval and Modern History for the post of

G.T.T. (History) and does not make an objection upon such degrees of

those candidates. It is submitted that as such at the Secondary level,

there is no composite subject like Social Studies. It is submitted that

Secondary level is upto Class X only which has subject Social Studies.

3.7 It is further submitted that as such it is clarified in the respective

certificates issued by the respective universities that the Ancient Indian

History / Ancient Indian History and Archaeology / Medieval and Modern

History is an integral part of the History and is equivalent to History as a

subject. It is submitted that the said subjects come under the subject

“History”. It is urged that therefore the respective candidates are eligible

for teaching the History/Civics.

11 3.8 It is further submitted that the High Court has not properly

appreciated the fact that in the various Universities there is

heterogeneity at the Graduation level while conferring degrees in various

subjects. Some Universities confer Bachelor of Arts in the subject itself

like B.A. in History and some Universities confer B.A. in related branch

of History indicating specialization like B.A. in Medieval History and B.A.

in Ancient History etc. It is submitted that all these degrees indicating

various specializations in various related branches of History cannot be

construed as divorced from subject “History”.

3.9 Mrs. Mohana, learned Senior Advocate has heavily relied upon the

decision of the learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court in Writ

Petition No.1130 of 2017 – Hari Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of

Jharkhand by which with respect to the very advertisement and very

post in the subject, “History/Civics”, it is observed and held that the

qualification for appointment on the post of G.T.T. for “History/Civics” in

Advertisement No. 21 of 2016 is arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal and

it is contrary to Jharkhand Appointment Rules. It is submitted that in the

aforesaid decision, the learned Single Judge also quashed the entire

advertisement No.21 of 2016, more particularly, the posts in the subject

of “History/Civics” on account of serious inconsistencies, mistakes and

12 drafting errors. However, Mrs. Mohana, learned Senior Advocate has

fairly conceded that against the decision of the learned Single Judge, an

appeal is preferred and pending and the judgment and order passed by

the learned Single Judge has been stayed.

3.10 In addition to what has been submitted by Mrs. Mohana, learned

Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the G.T.T., Ms. Mandavi Pandey,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the P.G.T.T. has vehemently

submitted that the Universities from where they have studied and

obtained the Postgraduation degrees in History/Postgraduate degree

certificates in History are not given and the degree certificates are given

only in the particular specialized branch of History. It is submitted that

therefore the Postgraduation degree in History and Bachelor of Arts

degree in History, both are different and cannot be equated and/or

compared.

4. All these appeals are opposed by Shri Sunil Kumar, learned Senior

Advocate appearing on behalf of the J.S.S.C. and Shri Vishnu Sharma,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand. The

present appeals are also opposed by Shri Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned

Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the impleaders, who are already

appointed and posted.

13 4.1 It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the respective respondents

that the applications were invited by giving advertisements as per Rule

50 of the Rules and especially considering Rule 9. That as per the

advertisement, the requirement was specific, namely combination of

“History/Civics” (post of G.T.T.).

4.2 That according to the State, for History and Civics, only one

teacher is required. Therefore, the requirement was specific –

“History/Civics”. That in the advertisement both for the posts of P.G.T.T.

as well as G.T.T., the candidate must have obtained Masters/Bachelor

degree in ‘History’ and in case of G.T.T. with Political Science with 45 per

cent marks in any one of the subjects. It is submitted that therefore

obtaining the Postgraduate degree/Bachelor degree in History as a

whole is a must. That the candidates should have a degree in Political

Science also so far as post of G.T.T. In the present case, admittedly,

none of the candidates/writ petitioners are having

Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History as a whole. It is contended

that they have studied and obtained the Postgraduate/Bachelor degrees

in only one of the branches of History namely Indian Ancient History,

Indian Ancient History and Culture, Medieval / Modern History, Indian

Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology, which cannot be said to be

obtaining the Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History, which was the

requirement. It is urged that even an Expert Committee was constituted

14 by the State Government on the request made by the J.S.S.C. and it

opined that the degrees obtained by the respective writ petitioners

cannot be said to be obtaining / having a Postgraduate degree in the

subject “History”. It is submitted that the same view is applicable with

respect to the Bachelor degree in History. Therefore, the same analogy

is applicable to both – Postgraduate degree in History and Bachelor

degree in History.

4.3 It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respective

respondents including those, who have already been appointed that only

those candidates, who were having the degrees in History have been

selected and appointed. Shri Sinha, learned Senior Advocate appearing

on behalf of the impleaders submitted that the already appointed

candidates are only those, who were having the Bachelor / Postgraduate

degree in History and not in a particular branch of History.

4.4 Making the above submissions, it is contended that the learned

Single Judge as well as the High Court have rightly refused to grant any

relief in favour of the original writ petitioners on the ground that they

cannot be said to be having the requisite qualifications as per the

advertisement.

15

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties at length.

6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present appeals,

the dispute is with respect to the posts namely, Postgraduate Trained

Teacher in History and Graduate Trained Teachers in History/Civics. As

per the State, so far as the G.T.T. is concerned, the requirement was a

combination of History/Civics. As per the advertisement, a candidate

must have the Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in the subject History. So

far as the G.T.T. is concerned, the educational qualifications required

was Bachelor degree in ‘History’ as well as Political Science as the

requirement was for History/Civics. Therefore, for both the posts namely

the Postgraduate Trained Teachers (History) and Graduate Trained

Teachers (History/Civics), a candidate must have the

Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in ‘History’ as a whole.

6.1 We have gone through the degrees/ certificates in the case of the

respective writ petitioners. It appears that the respective writ

petitioners have obtained the Postgraduate degrees/ Bachelor degrees,

as the case may be, in one of the branches of History, namely, Indian

Ancient History, Indian Ancient History and Culture, Medieval / Modern

History, Indian Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology. In our view,

obtaining the degree in one of the branches of History cannot be said to

16 be obtaining the degree in History as a whole. As a History teacher,

he/she has to teach in all the subjects of History, namely, Ancient History,

Indian Ancient History and Culture, Medieval / Modern History, Indian

Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology etc. Therefore, having studied

and obtaining the degree in only one branch of History cannot be said to

be having a degree in History subject as a whole, which was the

requirement. All the relevant aspects have been considered and gone

into in detail by the learned Single Judge meticulously.

6.2 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the learned

Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court in Writ Petition No.1130 of

2017 – Hari Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand is concerned, it is

to be noted that the said decision of the learned Single Judge has been

stayed by the Division Bench in appeal and the decision is pending.

Even the controversy in the said writ petition before the learned Single

Judge was with respect to combination post namely, “History/Civics” and

there was no specific controversy like in the present case.

6.3 It is also required to be noted that all the posts advertised have

been filled in and the respective teachers are working.

6.4 At this stage, it is required to be noted that even at the request of

J.S.S.C. the question, whether, the degrees obtained by the respective

17 petitioners in one branch of History can be said to be sufficient

compliance as per the advertisement and can be said to be obtaining a

degree in History came to be considered by the Expert Committee and

the Expert Committee has opined that the degrees obtained by the

respective candidates/petitioners in one branch of History cannot be said

to be obtaining the degree in History as a whole and therefore they

cannot be said to be having the requisite qualification as per the

advertisement.

6.5 As per the settled proposition of law, in the field of education, the

Court of Law cannot act as an expert normally, therefore, whether or not

a student/candidate is possessing the requisite qualification should

better be left to the educational institutions, more particularly, when the

Expert Committee considers the matter.

6.6 In the present case, the educational qualifications required has

been specifically mentioned in the advertisement. There is no ambiguity

and/or confusion in the advertisement providing educational qualification

and the post for which the applications were invited (History/Civics).

There cannot be any deviation from the educational qualifications

mentioned in the advertisement. Once having found that the respective

writ petitioners – appellants herein were not having the requisite

18 qualification as per the advertisement, namely, the

Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History, which was the requirement as

per the advertisement and thereafter their candidature was canceled,

both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High

Court have rightly refused to interfere with the same. We are in

complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge

and the Division Bench of the High Court.

6.7 As observed hereinabove in the online applications, it was stated

by the respective petitioners that they are having the

Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History and only at the time of

verification of the documents, when the respective certificates were

produced, at that time only, the authorities came to know that the

respective writ petitioners have the degrees in one branch of History and

not in History as a whole and therefore the show-cause notices were

issued so that the respective petitioners can clarify and satisfy that they

are having the requisite qualification of Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in

History and after giving them the opportunity, the decision has been

taken and that too after obtaining the Expert Committee’s opinion.

7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we see no

reason to interfere with the common judgments and order passed by the

19 learned Single Judge, which has been confirmed by the Division Bench

of the High Court. The candidature/selection of the respective

petitioners are rightly cancelled on the ground that they were not having

the requisite qualification for the post – Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in

History as per the advertisement No.21 of 2016 and 10 of 2017.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all the

appeals fail and the same deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly

dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there

shall be no order as to costs.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J. APRIL 13, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]

20