SANJU KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2012-2-71
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on February 01,2012

Sanju Kumari Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

PRASHANT KUMAR, J. - (1.) IN this writ application petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: (a) To issue appropriate direction to the Respondents for issuance of appointment letter in terms of examination held for the post of Primary Trained Teachers 2002 -2008 and result published on 18th August, 2005, whereby and where under petitioner has been declared successful in the district of Bokaro under category of Scheduled. Caste (b) To issue appropriate direction to Respondent no. 5 to 7 for issuance of caste and residential certificate as required in terms of letter no. 1219 dated 29/4/2005, issued by the department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Raj Bhasha and also in the light of certificate issued by the competent authority in respect of husband of the petitioner on 27.3.90, being : the permanent resident of Bermo since long i.e. before 1980. (c) To issue appropriate direction to the Respondents not to give effect of letter no. 1219 dated 29.4.2005 in respect of petitioner in view of fact that no such condition was mentioned in the advertisement by the Respondents for appointment on the post of Primary Trained Teachers that cast certificate issued by the other State will not given effect in respect of appointment. (d) Any other relief or reliefs for which petitioner is very much entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is stated that an advertisement issued by Jharkhand Public Service Commission for appointment of trained teachers in the district cadre vide Annexure -1. It is stated that petitioner applied in pursuance of said advertisement. Thereafter, she appeared in written examination and, became successful. It is stated that her name found place at serial no. 6 of the merit list of the District of Bokaro in Schedule Caste category. Thereafter, she went to the office of District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro for verification of testimonials. During that period, subordinate staff of District Superintendent of Education asked her to submit caste and residential certificate issued by competent authority. It is stated that thereafter, she applied for issuance of caste certificate before the competent authority but the same has not been issued on the ground that her permanent address is of the State of Bihar. It is stated that Personnel, Administrative reforms and Raj Bhasha Department Govt, of Jharkhand issued a letter bearing no. 1219 dated 29.4.2005, wherein it is stated that even though a candidate produced caste certificate issued by any officer of State of Jharkhand, he or she will not be appointed, if his or her permanent address is of another state. It is stated that petitioner was married with one Rejendra Rajak in the year 1988, who is resident of Kargali, Bermo in the district of Bokaro and since then she is living with her husband. It is stated that prior to reorganization of the State of Bihar, she is living in the area which later on constitute State of Jharkhand thus, she is entitled to get caste certificate from Jharkhand State even though her permanent home address falls within the State of Bihar after reorganization of State. It is submitted that since petitioner has been declared successful by Jharkhand Public Service Commission, therefore, she is entitled for appointment
(2.) A counter affidavit filed on behalf of Jharkhand Public Service Commission, wherein it is stated that Jharkhand Public Service Commission has published result with condition that appointment letters will be issued to selected candidates only after verification of their testimonials i.e. academic, training, district option and caste certificated furnished by the candidates. It is further stated that Department of Education, Govt, of Jharkhand had issued guidelines for verification of documents/ testimonials of selected candidates before issuance of appointment letters. Respondent no.4 (District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro) has filed a separate counter affidavit, wherein he stated that petitioner was selected in the category of Schedule Caste for the district of Bokaro. He further stated that inspite of notice, petitioner did not produce her caste and residential certificate for verification. To substantiate this fact respondent no.4 relied on Annexure -4, annexed With writ application It is further stated that petitioner on later stage filed a caste certificate issued in favour of one Rajendra Rajak saying that said. Rajendra Rajak is net husband and he is resident of Kargali, Bermo, district Bokaro. However, she did not produce her own caste certificate issued by any competent authority. Accordingly, it is stated that petitioner is not entitled for appointment. It is submitted by Sri Dhananjay Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner that since petitioner has been married with Sri. Rajendra Rajak in the year 1988, who is resident of Kargali, Bermo in the district of Bokaro therefore, she is entitled to get caste certificate even though her permanent address falls within the State of Bihar after re -organization of the State. It is further submitted that Annexure -5 i.e. instruction of Personnel Department was issued in the year 2005, therefore, the same had no application in the case of advertisement issued in the year 2002 -03. It is submitted that since petitioner had produced caste certificate of her husband which was issued in the year 1990, therefore, respondents are bound to issue appointment fetter in favour of petitioner, because she has been declared successful by Jharkhand Public Service Commission.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel No. III and Sri Sajnay Piprawall, learned counsel for the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, submitted that result of the petitioner published subject to the condition that she will produce all the documents including caste certificate and residential certificate for verification before issuance of appointment letter. They further submitted that from Annexure -4, it is clear that petitioner did not produce residential and caste certificates. Accordingly, they submitted that petitioner is not entitled for appointment.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.