D. N. Patel, J. - (1.) These Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by the original respondents-State of Jharkhand being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S)No.7885 of 2013, W.P.(S) No. 7122 of 2013, W.P.(S) No.7880 of 2013 and W.P.(S)No.576 of 2014 whereby, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions preferred by the private respondents (original petitioners) and the cut-off date prescribed by the State of Jharkhand which is 1st August, 2013 for applications invited for the post of Primary Teachers has been changed and the learned Single Judge has re-fixed the said cut-off date as 1st July, 2011 and thereby made the original petitioners, more eligible than what they were under the advertisement issued by the Government of Jharkhand in the month of November, 2013 and hence, the State of Jharkhand has preferred these Letters Patent Appeals.
(2.) Factual Matrix * Earlier a public advertisement was issued bearing no. 27/2011 on 26th March, 2011 for the post of Primary Teachers in the schools at State of Jharkhand. This advertisement is at Annexure-4 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal (For reference of Annexures L.P.A. No. 429 of 2014 is considered to maintain the consistency in Annexure numbers). * As per the aforesaid public advertisement the cut-off date, so far as, calculation of age is concerned of the candidates who are preferring applications was prescribed as 1st July, 2011. * On several grounds this public advertisement and the circulars for appointment of Primary Teachers were under Challenge in W.P.(S) No. 3099 of 2011 which was decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 22nd November, 2011. This judgment is reported as 2011(4) JLJR 387. This judgment is at Annexure-8 series to the memo of L.P.A. No. 429 of 2014). * By virtue of the aforesaid decision, the public Advertisement no. 27/2011 dated 26th March, 2011 was quashed and the selection process was also quashed and the matter had went upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the S.L.P. preferred by the State was also dismissed. * It further appears from the facts of the case that fresh mind was applied by the State of Jharkhand and later on in the year, 2012 Jharkhand Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2012" for the sake of brevity) were enacted in pursuance of which Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) was also to be undertaken and cleared by the candidates. * This Teachers Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as "TET" for the sake of brevity) was advertised in the year 2012. The candidates applied for the same and the result of this TET Examination declared in the year, 2013. * Thereafter fresh advertisement for the post of Primary Teachers was given-District wise, in November, 2013 for 18000 Primary Teachers. Cut-off date prescribed for the calculation of the age of the applicants was 1st August, 2013. * The maximum age prescribed for the candidates is as under: JUDGEMENT_134_LAWS(JHAR)7_2017_1.html * Thus, as per Rule 13 of the Rules, 2012 one time age relaxation was given as 5 years for all the aforesaid categories of candidates. * The Primary Teachers were selected and now appointment and they are 13000 in numbers approximately. * 2nd TET was also advertised and conducted in the month of November, 2016 and result was published in 2017. * Private respondents (original petitioners) challenged the cut-off date prescribed in the public advertisement given by the State of Jharkhand in the month of November, 2013 (Annexure-7 to the memo of L.P.A. No. 429 of 2014) and they demanded that the cutoff date should be changed as 01.07.2011 as prescribed under the older public advertisement (Annexure-4 to the memo of LPA No. 492 of 2014) because even after such a huge age relaxation still they are age bar. * The aforesaid contention of the private respondents in these L.P.As. (original petitioners) was accepted by the learned Single Judge and all the four writ petitions being: W.P.(S) No. 7885 of 2013; W.P.(S) No. 7122 of 2013; W.P.(S) No. 7880 of 2013; W.P.(S) No.576 of 2014, were allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 17th September, 2014 and the cut-off date prescribed by the Government has been changed from 1st August, 2013 to 1st July, 2011 and hence, the original respondent-State of Jharkhand has preferred these Letters Patent Appeals.
(3.) Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the Appellants (State of Jharkhand): * Counsel for the appellants in all the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals submitted that cut-off date prescribed by the Government of Jharkhand in pursuance of public advertisement for the post of Primary Teachers given in the month of November, 2013 (Annexure-7 to the memo of L.P.A. No. 429 of 2014) has been altered by the learned Single Judge and has now re-affixed the same as 01.07.2011 which is not permissible because whenever a cut-off date is prescribed, there are bound to be few persons who will fall on wrong side of the cut-off date, but, that per se cannot be a reason to alter the cut-off date prescribed by the Government otherwise, there will be no end of such type of desire by the candidates. All cannot be accommodated in one advertisement. Few candidates are bound to be within the age limit whenever any public advertisement is given for any public post. Court cannot accommodate everyone under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions preferred by the private respondents. * Counsel for the appellants submitted that even if the cut-off date is altered by the learned Single Judge from 1st August, 2013 to 1st July, 2011 still there can be few candidates who are age bared and there is no end of this phenomena and therefore, whenever any public advertisement is given with any cut-off date there are bound to be few persons who are not eligible to apply for the post. Fixing cut-off date is a policy decision of the Government and this Court will be slow in interfering with the policy decision of the Government while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. * Counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand has further submitted that whenever any Class-III or Class-II posts are to be filled up or the post of Teachers are to be filled up all cannot be selected at a time. There are bound to be series of public advertisements and consequently there are bound to be separate cut-off dates for separate public advertisement. Cut-off date which is prescribed in the 1st advertisement cannot be continued in all the Primary Teachers are being appointed. If this argument is accepted perhaps looking to the huge vacancy the last advertisement may come in the year 2027 and all age barred even after their superannuation age the candidates will be eligible to apply and hence, every public advertisement has its own cut-off date. There cannot be same cut-off date for more than one public advertisements which are advertised after the interval of more than two or three years. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and cut-off date of 1st advertisement dated 26th March, 2011 (Annexure-4 has been wrongly applied in 2nd public advertisement given in the month of November, 2013 (Annexure-7). If this is allowed then as stated hereinabove, even upto the year, 2027, the cut-off date prescribed in the first advertisement should be continued which is not permissible in the eye of law. * Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the Rules have been enacted which are known as Jharkhand Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2012 which prescribes the clearance of TET. Moreover, as per Rule no.13 thereof as a onetime measurement, relaxation has been given for 5 years. These rules are at Annexure-5 to the memo of L.P.A. No.429 of 2014. Advertisement given in the month of November, 2013 (Annexure7) is explicitly clearer. There is no ambiguity and equivocalness. Maximum age limit has already been prescribed as stated hereinabove as on 1st August, 2013. For persons with a disability 5 years additional relaxation has been given and as per Rule 13 of the Rules, 2012 as one time measurement further 5 years relaxation has been given. Enough is enough. There cannot be endless relaxation and that too, under the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. * There no legitimate right vested in the candidates that they ought to get age relaxation whenever they apply for the public post. Age relaxation is a policy decision to be taken by the Government and it varies from post to post and it also varies as per the public need. It also varies as per the administrative exigencies. It also varies looking to the work to be done by the appointees e.g. if a police personnel is to be appointed too much age relaxation is dangerous because old man cannot run likewise age relaxation depends upon the work to be done by the selected candidates. There are various reasons for which the cut-off date is being prescribed by the Government. Hence, it is known as a policy decision. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while quashing and setting aside one cut-off date and while prescribing another cutoff date. * Counsel for the State has relied upon the decisions reported in: (a) 2012 (4) JCR 63 (Jhr.) (b) 2008 (2) JLJR 543 (Jhr.) & other decisions * On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that once the cut-off date is given clearly in the public advertisement and with enough and adequate age relaxation inbuilt in the public advertisement (Annexure-7) the Court cannot alter the said cut-off date and prescribed the same as 01.07.2011 merely on the ground that earlier public advertisement (Annexure-4) the cut-off date prescribed was 01.07.2011. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petitions and hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 17th September, 2014 deserves to be quashed and set aside.;