Jharkhand HC Disposes of Writ Petition Filed to Fill up Vacant Seats Reserved for Govt. School Teachers

Must Read

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus....

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Follow us

A writ petition was filed to fill up the vacant seats which were kept reserved for Govt. School Teachers in terms of Rule 9(i) of Jharkhand Govt. High School Teacher and Teaching Staff Appointment and Service Condition Rules, 2015 which was disposed of by Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi on 23rd November 2020. The High Court considered this issue, in the case of Birendra Kumar & Ors v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioners applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) for subject-wise and district wise vacancies following the advertisement published in 2016. The Petitioners appeared in both compulsory and mains examination. After successfully qualifying both the examinations, they were called for counselling/document verification vide notification on different dates which were published on the website of Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission.

After that, based on the marks obtained by each candidate in their specific subject concerned, a merit-list was prepared and appointment letters were to be made. It came to notice that the Petitioners belonged to non-scheduled and unreserved districts of Jharkhand. Thus, the Petitioners were not covered under the aforesaid notification.

Arguments

The Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the said notification was challenged before the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Soni Kumari & Others Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others bearing W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017. She also submitted that the matter could be disposed of in the light of the judgment passed by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case, perusing the Order dated 21.09.2020, particularly Para 66.

Furthermore, the Counsel submitted that as the Petitioners belonged to non-scheduled districts and there was no stay operation, given the observation made in Paragraph 66 of the Full Bench judgment, the writ petition could be disposed of.

Adv. Piprawall, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-JSSC, submitted that Notification No.2264, dated 29.08.2019 issued by School Education and Literacy Department, through which filling up of the posts for the subjects of Hindi, English, History/Civics, Geography, Maths/Physics, and Biology/Chemistry was already present. He further stated that because of Full Bench judgment in Soni Kumari” case, the matter could be disposed of, in the light of paragraph no.66 of the said judgment.

The Respondents’ Counsel added that the writ petition could be disposed of only to the effect that JSSC would examine as to whether the Petitioners fell under the zone of consideration or not. If they fell under the zone of consideration, appropriate orders shall be passed.

Court’s Decision

The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Petitioners to file fresh representation within three weeks from the date of the present order.

The Court stated that after the representation was presented before the authority, it was the onus of the authority to arrive at a decision, following the precedent in Soni Kumari & Others Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others. The authority was directed to arrive at their decision within eight weeks thereafter.

Click here to see the full judgement


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -