Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner (appellant herein), whose writ petition bearing W.P(S) No. 7898 of 2012 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 03.12.2013.
(2.) Factual Matrix: • "A public advertisement was issued by the respondents in the month of September, 2002 for appointment to the post of Primary Teachers in the State of Jharkhand. • The last date to submit the form by the candidates was 30.09.2002. • This appellant (original petitioner) pursued her B.Ed. study in the year 1995 -96 and appeared at the Examination in the year 2001, but, she failed in the B.Ed. Examination in the year 2002. Again she appeared in the B.Ed. Examination in month of October, 2003 and cleared the same and the marks -sheet was given to her in the month of February, 2004. • Jharkhand Public Service Commission held the examination for appointment the post of Primary Teachers on 27.05.2003. • The List 1st - result of the successful candidates was declared on 14.11.2003 whereas List 2nd - result of the successful candidates was declared on 18.08.2005, in which the name of this appellant (original petitioner) was included and she was declared a successful candidate in the written test, held by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. However, she was not appointed on the post of Primary Teacher and, hence, this appellant preferred a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 7898 of 2012, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 03.12.2013 and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner."
(3.) The arguments canvassed by the counsel for the appellant (original petitioner): "I. Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that as per Rule 4 of the Jharkhand Primary School Teachers Appointment Rules, 2002, a candidate who had already taken training of B.Ed. course was eligible to apply, but, before the said candidate is appointed as a Primary Teacher, the said candidate should clear the B.Ed. examination. II. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that this Rule 4 is duly complied with by this appellant because her result was declared on 18.08.2005 and she had cleared the B.Ed. examination in the month of February, 2004 itself. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. III. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that Rule 4 has been interpreted by a Full Bench of this Court vide its decision, which is reported in, 2008 (4) JLJR 184 and thus, the leaned Single Judge cannot overrule the Full Bench's decision. In fact the said decision is binding upon the learned Single Judge. IV. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that even after 2005 in the later years also, several orders have been passed by the learned Single Judge in several writ petitions to consider the cases of the applicants in light of the aforesaid Full Bench's decision and, therefore, the panel of the selected candidates has been made operative even after one year is over. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition service No. 7898 of 2012 dated 03.12.2013 deserves to be quashed and set aside.";