- (1.) 4/7.8.2012 In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought direction on the respondents to consider his request for recommendation of his name for appointment on the post of Teacher in 10+2 School in Economics subject. According to the petitioner, though he fulfils all the requirements and eligibility and he has also passed the B. Ed. Examination on 17.8.2011, the respondents have not selected and recommended his name for appointment on the said post. The petitioner has obtained 190 marks in the Post Graduate Trained Teachers Test in B.C category, Economics subject, whereas, the candidates, who secured 188 marks in B.C category, Economics subject, have been recommended for appointment to the post of Teachers. The petitioner approached the respondents and filed representation requesting them to recommend his name, but no order has been passed.
(2.) THE writ petition has been opposed by the respondents-Jharkhand Academic Council. It has been stated, inte alia, that the petitioner had appeared in the Post Graduate Trained Teachers Test and had secured 190 marks, but his name was not recommended for not submitting the B. Ed. certificate within the prescribed time. By newspaper publication, notice was also given to all concerned to submit the B. Ed. certificate by 15.3.2012, but even thereafter, the petitioner did not submit the B. Ed. certificate and did not comply with the requirement for selection. In view thereof, he was not selected and recommended. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had appeared in the Post Graduate Trained Teachers Test and secured 190 marks in B.C category, Economics subject. It is also not denied that the candidates, who secured 188 marks in B.C Category, Economics subject, have been declared successful and their names have been recommended for appointment on the post of Teachers. According to the petitioner, he had completed the B. Ed. course by August 2011 and had got the B. Ed. certificate on 17.8.2011. It is, thus, an admitted case that the petitioner had possessed the B. Ed. qualification at the relevant time. The petitioner has claimed that he had produced the B. Ed. certificate before the respondents. However, they have disputed that he had produced the B. Ed. certificate within the prescribed time. The said factual dispute cannot be adjudicated upon and decided in writ jurisdiction of this Court. However, it does not appeal to the reasons as to why the petitioner, who had obtained the B. Ed. certificate before the prescribed period, would not submit the same within the prescribed period. The respondents have emphatically stated that the certificate was not submitted within the prescribed time and that was the reason for not recommending the petitioner's name, but from the record, it does not appear that the said deficiency was pointed out to the petitioner before denying his candidature. According to the petitioner, if his candidature is not considered, he would become over age and would not be eligible for the next test. Considering the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation, taking into consideration that he had obtained the B. Ed. certificate prior to the date of appointment and also that he has obtained more marks than the candidates, who have been recommended for appointment in the same category and subject, and pass appropriate order within four weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order.;