Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. Petitioner had a grievance in relation to the selection of Respondent No. 8 as Para Teacher in Upgraded Middle School, M.S. Colony, Panchayat Pathra as, according to him, he was more qualified than the Respondent No. 8. Petitioner claims to have a qualification of B.A., M.A. and B.Ed. while the Respondent No. 8 was only Intermediate and B.T. pass. Other grounds relating to the residence of Respondent No. 8 was also taken by the petitioner when he approached this Court earlier in WPS No. 4069/2012 with the same grievance. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 28.8.2012 (Annexure -15) directing the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka to take a decision on the petitioner's representation of course after hearing the Respondent No. 8 as well. The petitioner's representation was considered in Service Miscellaneous Case No. 4/12 after giving opportunity to him as well as the Respondent No. 8 and thereafter has been rejected by the impugned order dated 21.12.2012 (Annexure -17). Petitioner has assailed the same by relying upon certificates of Graduation, M.A., B.Ed. enclosed as Annexure -6 series, Annexures -7 & 7/1 and Annexure -8.
(2.) FROM perusal of Annexure -6 series, it appears that the petitioner was the student of Graduation under Sido -Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka and final part -III, Exam. was held in August 2006 and results of which were published on 27.2.2007. However, even before declaration of Graduation results, petitioner claims to have been enrolled in B.Ed. Course for the session 2006 -2007 and exam of which was held sometimes in 2007 and results were published on 5.11.2008. Apparently, the petitioner could not have taken admission in B.Ed. from a session prior to declaration of results of Graduation i.e. on 27.2.2007. Not only such act of taking admission in B.Ed. course by the petitioner was improper, but on that basis, no claim for consideration can also arise as that would amount to giving legal colour to an act which was not proper in the eye of law, it is the very reason why the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka has rejected the claim of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has taken all efforts to explain that admission in B.Ed. was taken only after declaration of B.A. results on 11.3.2007 in Jiwaji University, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh in Yuwa Vyabsaik Shiksha Mahavidyalaya (Annexure -16). The Money Receipt of deposit of admission fees dated 11.3.2007 of the said college shows that admission has been taken in session 2006 -2007. Petitioner obviously did not attend the session from its inception in 2006 also, but was allowed admission from a date prior to even publication of Graduation result's. This cannot be said to be proper in the eye of law to claim any appointment on the strength of such qualification. Therefore, on consideration of relevant material facts on record, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.;