Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner's application for appearing in the TET Exam. under Advertisement No. 95/2012 was not received in the office of the respondent -Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi within the prescribed time stipulated under the original Advertisement No. 95/2012 or even as per the corrigendum being Advertisement No. 22/2013 (Annexure -5).
(2.) Petitioner relying upon Annexure -6, said to be the receipt of dispatch of Teachers Training Certificate by Speed Post, submits that they were sent to the correct address of JAC on 29 -4.2013 but were diverted to some other address, as a result, could not reach the respondent -JAC within the time. This alone is the basis for rejection of her candidature. In the earlier writ petition preferred by the petitioner WPS No. 4587/2013, the learned Single Judge had been pleased to direct the respondent -JAC to consider her representation by order dated 10.12.2013 (Annexure -9). The order impugned at Annexure -11 dated 4.1.2014 has rejected the petitioner's claim on the said ground.
(3.) Counsel for the respondent -JAC submits that the petitioner's Teachers Training Certificate had never been received in the office of the respondent -JAC, as per the provisions of clause -4 of the original Advertisement No. 95/2012 and even as per the corrigendum. Therefore, mere dispatch of the said document if at all, would not be a compliance of the requirement of the advertisement. It is submitted that such plea, if accepted, would amount to changing the cut -off date of the advertisement for one or the other individual which may result in unfair discrimination to several such similarly situated persons. Even respondent -JAC for no fault, cannot be blamed for non -consideration of the petitioner's candidature for that reason.;