INDRESH KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. on 13 April 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentsand orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in LettersPatent Appeal Nos. 796 of 2019 and 826 of 2019 by which the DivisionBench of the High Court has confirmed the respective judgments andorders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissingthe writ petitions, the original writ petitioners have preferred the presentappeals.

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 thepost of Postgraduate Trained Teacher in the subject History and CivilAppeal No. 2220 of 2022 is with respect to the original writ petitioners,who applied for the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in the subject ofHistory/Civics.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are asunder:- Facts in respect of Postgraduate Trained Teachers 2.1 That the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reformsand Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand vide its letter dated 24.07.2017Bforwarded requisition of the Department of School Education and Literacy(Secondary Education Directorate) Government of Jharkhand to theJharkhand Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as“J.S.S.C.”) in terms of the Appointment Rules, 2012 for starting theselection process for appointment to the post of Postgraduate TrainedCTeachers in the High School of the State of Jharkhand for differentsubjects under different categories.

2.2 That the J.S.S.C. after receiving the request, started theselection process for appointment to the post of Postgraduate TrainedTeachers (P.G.T.T.) in the State of Jharkhand in different subjects, i.e.,DChemistry, Physics, History etc. Accordingly, advertisement No.10/2017was issued by which applications were invited from the eligible candidatesfor considering their candidature for appointment to the post ofPostgraduate Trained Teachers. It was a combined advertisement forthe post of Postgraduate Trained Teachers for different subjects underdifferent categories. The advertisement provided the pay-scale andEminimum educational qualification for the posts. That as per theadvertisement, the eligibility criteria for the post of Postgraduate TrainedTeachers in the subject History was that a candidate must have obtaineda Postgraduate degree with 50% marks in the related subjects (in thesubject of History).F

2.3 Pursuant to the advertisement, the respective original writpetitioners applied for the said posts and participated in the selectionprocess. All of them submitted their application forms online andintheirforms, they also mentioned their respective educational qualificationsas Post graduates in Hindi. They were allowed to appear in theGexamination, who were also declared successful on the basis of theirperformance in the examination. After publication of the result, successfulcandidates were required to get verification of their testimonials. At thetime of verification of the testimonials, the respective original writpetitioners submitted their Postgraduate degree certificates. It was foundthat the respective original writ petitioners were having a PostgraduateH

INDRESH KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS. v. THE STATE OFJHARKHAND & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

degree in Medieval History; Ancient History; Ancient History and Culture;Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology etc. respectively from differentuniversities and as such they failed to submit the Postgraduate degree inHistory in terms of the advertisement. It was found that the respectivepetitioners had Postgraduate degrees in one of branches of History inplace of History as a whole and, therefore, show-cause notices wereissued to them by J.S.S.C. to show-cause why their candidatures maynot be cancelled as they failed to submit the certificate of Master ofArts (Postgraduation) with the subject “History”.

2.4 At that stage, some of the writ petitioners filed the writ petitionsbefore the High Court and some filed writ petitions after their candidatureswere cancelled.The learned Single Judge dismissed their respective writpetitions holding that the original writ petitioners were ineligible for theselection and appointment as Postgraduate Teacher in History subject.The learned Single Judge held that only those candidates, who haveobtained degree exclusively in the subject “History” as per theadvertisement are entitled for consideration for appointment to the saidpost.

2.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgments and orderspassed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petitions, theoriginal writ petitioners preferred letters patent appeals before the DivisionBench of the High Court. By the impugned judgments and orders, theDivision Bench of the High Court has dismissed the Letters PatentAppeals and has confirmed the judgments and orders passed by thelearned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions, which has given riseto the present Civil Appeal Nos. 2217-2218 of 2022, Civil Appeal No.2219 of 2022 and Civil Appeal No. 2221 of 2022.

Facts in respect of Graduate Trained Teachers

Facts in respect of Graduate Trained Teachers 2.1.1 That the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reformsand 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 startingthe selection process for appointment to the post of Graduate TrainedTeachers in different subjects in different Districts of the State. That theJ.S.S.C. after receiving the requisition, started selection process forappointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teachers and accordinglyinvited online applications for the Common Graduate Trained TeacherCompetition Examination, 2016. The advertisement No.21/2016 was AB

C

D

EF

G

H

Apublished by which applications were invited from the eligible candidatesfor considering their candidatures for appointment against the advertisedposts. As per the advertisement, for the post of History/Civics, theeligibility criteria was “Graduate with History and Political Science butout of two subjects, one subject must have 45 per cent marks and B.Ed.from institute recognized or B.Ed. from National Teachers EducationBCouncil and for SC/ST minimum 40 per cent”.

2.1.2 The respective writ petitioners submitted their applicationforms online for considering their candidatures for appointment to thepost of Graduate Trained Teacher (G.T.T.) for subject ‘History andCivics’. They mentioned their educational qualification as Graduate inCHistory and Political Science in their online application forms.

2.1.3 On the basis of the declaration made by them in the onlineapplication form, they were allowed to appear in the examination andthey were also declared successful on the basis of their performance inthe examination. After publication of the result, the successful candidatesDwere called for verification of their testimonials.

On the date of the verification of the testimonials, the original writpetitioners submitted their certificates of Graduation degree. It was foundthat they were having the Graduate Degree in Ancient History; AncientHistory, Culture and Archaeology and Medieval History etc. respectivelyEfrom different universities and they failed to submit their Graduationdegree in ‘History’ in terms of the advertisement. Therefore, it wasfound that as the petitioners had Graduation degree in one of the branchesof the subject History in place of ‘History’ as a whole and therefore,they were not eligible for the post of Graduate Trained Teachers in theFsubjects of History and Civics as they cannot be said to be having therequisite qualification in terms of the advertisement.

2.1.4 The show cause notices were issued to them to show causewhy their candidatures may not be cancelled on the ground that they arenot having the requisite qualification in terms of the advertisement andGtherefore ineligible for the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in the subjectof 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 petitionsby observing and holding that obtaining the Bachelor degree in one ofH

the branches of the subject, namely, History cannot be said to be obtainingthe 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 requisitequalification in terms of the advertisement.

2.1.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgments andorders passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions,the original writ petitioners preferred Letters Patent Appeals before theHigh Court. By the impugned judgments and orders, the High Court hasdismissed the said Letters Patent Appeals. Hence the original writpetitioners have preferred the present Civil Appeal No. 2220 of 2022.

3. Mrs. V. Mohana, learned Senior Advocate and Ms. MandaviPandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective appellantshave vehemently submitted that the advertisements itself were confusing.It is submitted that in the advertisements, the word “History/Civics” hasbeen mentioned, so far as Graduate Trained Teacher is concerned.

3.1 It is further submitted that as such the original writ petitionersare having the prescribed requisite minimum educational qualificationsas a Graduate in the related subject (the requisite qualification in Historyand Political Science). It is submitted that on a conjoint reading of thepost which had to be filled and the minimum educational qualificationsprescribed, it is clear that Graduation in related subject with minimum 45per cent marks was the requisite qualification. That all the petitionershave obtained the Graduation/Postgraduation degree in Indian AncientHistory, Indian Ancient History and Culture, Medieval / Modern History,Indian Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology indicating specializationin the History subject. It is submitted that the papers pursued by thepetitioners are in “History”. It is submitted that admittedly, the petitionersalso studied Political Science in their Graduation. Therefore, therespondents ought not to have rejected the candidature of the petitionerson the ground that they did not have the requisite qualifications as perthe advertisement.

3.2 It is further submitted that the High Court has not properlyappreciated the fact that so far as G.T.T. candidates are concerned, noExpert Committee was constituted to consider the educationalqualifications obtained by them. It is submitted that as such the ExpertCommittee considered the Postgraduate degrees obtained by therespective candidates, who applied for the post of P.G.T.T. (History).

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A3.3 It is further submitted that even the so-called Committeecomprised only of the local Institutions and persons from the State ofJharkhand alone. That the so-called Expert Committee was neverconstituted in the case of G.T.T. candidates and it was restricted toconsidering the cases of P.G.T.T. candidates.B3.4 Mrs. Mohana, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalfof the petitioners - G.T.T. candidates has further submitted that even thecase of G.T.T. cannot be compared with that of P.G.T.T. candidates. It issubmitted that the minimum eligibility requirement in both were completelydifferent. Applications for P.G.T.T. candidates were invited only to teach“History” and the requirement was degree in the related subject. On theCother hand, G.T.T. candidates were required for teaching “History/Civics”and the minimum eligibility is also different.

A

3.5 It is further submitted that in the present case, the principle oflegitimate expectation ought to be invoked in view of the fact that in theidentically worded previous advertisements, the candidates having similarD/ identical qualifications as that of the petitioners were selected and areworking.

3.6 It is further submitted that the Hon’ble High Court ought tohave appreciated that the other States and the instrumentalities of thoseStates recognize the degreeswhich the petitioners are having, for theEconcerned post/subject. It is submitted that even Kendriya Vidyalaya,which is controlled by the Central Government appoints candidatespossessing Graduation degree in Ancient Indian History / Ancient IndianHistory and Archaeology / Medieval and Modern History for the post ofG.T.T. (History) and does not make an objection upon such degrees ofthose candidates. It is submitted that as such at the Secondary level,Fthere is no composite subject like Social Studies. It is submitted thatSecondary 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 respectivecertificates issued by the respective universities that the Ancient IndianHistory / Ancient Indian History and Archaeology / Medieval and ModernGHistory is an integral part of the History and is equivalent to History asa subject. It is submitted that the said subjects come under the subject“History”. It is urged that therefore the respective candidates are eligiblefor teaching the History/Civics.

3.8 It is further submitted that the High Court has not properlyHappreciated 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 Historyindicating specialization like B.A. in Medieval History and B.A. in AncientHistory etc. It is submitted that all these degrees indicating variousspecializations in various related branches of History cannot be construedas divorced from subject “History”.

3.9 Mrs. Mohana, learned Senior Advocate has heavily relied uponthe decision of the learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court inWrit Petition No.1130 of 2017 – Hari Sharma and Ors. Vs. Stateof Jharkhand by which with respect to the very advertisement andvery post in the subject,”History/Civics”, it is observed and held that thequalification for appointment on the post of G.T.T. for “History/Civics”in Advertisement No. 21 of 2016 is arbitrary, discriminatory and illegaland it is contrary to Jharkhand Appointment Rules. It is submitted that inthe aforesaid decision, the learned Single Judge also quashed the entireadvertisement No.21 of 2016, more particularly, the posts in the subjectof “History/Civics” on account of serious inconsistencies, mistakes anddrafting errors. However, Mrs. Mohana, learned Senior Advocate hasfairly conceded that against the decision of the learned Single Judge, anappeal is preferred and pending and the judgment and order passed bythe 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. MandaviPandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the P.G.T.T. hasvehemently submitted that the Universities from where they have studiedand obtained the Postgraduation degrees in History/Postgraduate degreecertificates in History are not given and the degree certificates are givenonly in the particular specialized branch of History. It is submitted thattherefore the Postgraduation degree in History and Bachelor of Artsdegree in History, both are different and cannot be equated and/orcompared.

4. All these appeals are opposed by Shri Sunil Kumar, learnedSenior Advocate appearing on behalf of the J.S.S.C. and Shri VishnuSharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand.The present appeals are also opposed by Shri Ajit Kumar Sinha, learnedSenior Advocate appearing on behalf of the impleaders, who are alreadyappointed and posted.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

4.1 It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the respectiverespondents that the applications were invited by giving advertisementsas per Rule 50 of the Rules and especially considering Rule 9.That as per the advertisement, the requirement was specific, namelycombination of “History/Civics” (post of G.T.T.).

A

B4.2 That according to the State, for History and Civics, only oneteacher is required. Therefore, the requirement was specific – “History/Civics”. That in the advertisement both for the posts of P.G.T.T. as wellas G.T.T., the candidate must have obtained Masters/Bachelor degreein ‘History’and in case of G.T.T. with Political Science with 45 per centmarks in any one of the subjects. It is submitted that therefore obtainingCthe Postgraduate degree/Bachelor degree in History as a whole is amust. That the candidates should have a degree in Political Science alsoso far as post of G.T.T. In the present case, admittedly, none of thecandidates/writ petitioners are having Postgraduate/Bachelor degree inHistory as a whole. It is contended that they have studied and obtainedDthe Postgraduate/Bachelor degrees in only one of the branches of Historynamely Indian Ancient History, Indian Ancient History and Culture,Medieval / Modern History, Indian Ancient History, Culture andArchaeology, which cannot be said to be obtaining the Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History, which was the requirement. It is urged thateven an Expert Committee was constituted by the State Government onEthe request made by the J.S.S.C. and it opined that the degrees obtainedby the respective writ petitioners cannot be said to be obtaining / havinga Postgraduate degree in the subject “History”. It is submitted that thesame view is applicable with respect to the Bachelor degree in History.Therefore,the same analogy is applicable to both – Postgraduate degreeFin History and Bachelor degree in History.

4.3 It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respectiverespondents including those, who have already been appointed that onlythose candidates, who were having the degrees in History have beenselected and appointed. Shri Sinha, learned Senior Advocate appearingGon behalf of the impleaders submitted that the already appointedcandidates are only those, who were having the Bachelor / Postgraduatedegree in History and not in a particular branch of History.

4.4 Making the above submissions, it is contended that the learnedSingle Judge as well as the High Court have rightly refused to grant anyHrelief in favour of the original writ petitioners on the ground that they cannot be said to be having the requisite qualifications as per theadvertisement.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective 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 TrainedTeacher in History and Graduate Trained Teachers in History/Civics.As per the State, so far as the G.T.T.is concerned, the requirement wasa combination of History/Civics. As per the advertisement, a candidatemust have the Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in the subject History.Sofar as the G.T.T. is concerned, the educational qualifications requiredwas Bachelor degree in ‘History’ as well as Political Science as therequirement was for History/Civics. Therefore, for both the posts namelythe Postgraduate Trained Teachers (History) and Graduate TrainedTeachers (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 ofthe respective writ petitioners. It appears that the respective writpetitioners have obtained the Postgraduate degrees/ Bachelor degrees,asthe case may be, in one of the branches of History, namely, Indian AncientHistory, Indian Ancient History and Culture, Medieval / Modern History,Indian Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology. In our view,obtainingthe degree in one of the branches of History cannot be said to be obtainingthe degree in History as a whole. As a History teacher, he/she has toteach in all the subjects of History, namely, Ancient History, IndianAncient History and Culture, Medieval / Modern History, Indian AncientHistory, Culture and Archaeology etc.Therefore, having studied andobtaining the degree in only one branch of History cannot be said to behaving a degree in History subject as a whole, which was the requirement.All the relevant aspects have been considered and gone into in detail bythe learned Single Judge meticulously.

6.2 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of thelearned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court in Writ Petition No.1130of 2017 – Hari Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand is concerned, itis to be noted that the said decision of the learned Single Judge has beenstayed by the Division Bench in appeal and the decision is pending.Even the controversy in the said writ petition before the learned Single A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

AJudge 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 havebeen filled in and the respective teachers are working.

6.4 At this stage, it is required to be noted that even at the requestBof J.S.S.C. the question, whether, the degrees obtained by the respectivepetitioners in one branch of History can be said to be sufficient complianceas per the advertisement and can be said to be obtaining a degree inHistory came to be considered by the Expert Committee and the ExpertCommittee has opined that the degrees obtained by the respectiveCcandidates/petitioners in one branch of History cannot be said to beobtaining the degree in History as a whole and therefore they cannot besaid 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, whetherDor not a student/candidate is possessing the requisite qualification shouldbetter be left to the educational institutions, more particularly, when theExpert Committee considers the matter.

6.6 In the present case, the educational qualifications requiredhas been specifically mentioned in the advertisement. There is noEambiguity and/or confusion in the advertisement providing educationalqualification and the post for which the applications were invited (History/Civics). There cannot be any deviation from the educational qualificationsmentioned in the advertisement. Once having found that the respectivewrit petitioners – appellants herein were not having the requisitequalification as per the advertisement, namely, the Postgraduate/BachelorFdegree in History, which was the requirement as per the advertisementand thereafter their candidature was canceled, both the learned SingleJudge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have rightlyrefused to interfere with the same. We are in complete agreement withthe view taken by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench ofGthe High Court.

6.7 As observed hereinabove in the online applications, it wasstated by the respective petitioners that they are having the Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History and only at the time of verification of thedocuments, when the respective certificates were produced, at that timeonly, the authorities came to know that the respective writ petitionersH

have the degrees in one branch of History and not in History as a wholeand therefore the show-cause notices were issued so that the respectivepetitioners can clarify and satisfy that they are having the requisitequalification of Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History and after givingthem the opportunity, the decision has been taken and that too afterobtaining the Expert Committee’s opinion.

7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we seeno reason to interfere with the common judgments and order passed bythe learned Single Judge, which has been confirmed by the DivisionBench of the High Court. The candidature/selection of the respectivepetitioners are rightly cancelled on the ground that they were not havingthe requisite qualification for the post – Postgraduate/Bachelor degreein 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 theappeals fail and the same deserve to be dismissed and are accordinglydismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, thereshall be no order as to costs.

Devika Gujral

Appeals dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H