Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder a direction has been sought for upon the respondents to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Teacher (Sanskrit) pursuant to Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Examination-2016 in terms of Advertisement No.21/2016 since she has qualified in all events but could not properly been communicated for appearing in document verification procedure as per the date prescribed, her candidature was rejected as also for quashing the notice dated 04.02.2019 as contained in Memo No.1854 whereby and whereunder the candidature of the petitioner was rejected since she could not appear in the document verification procedure.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the Advertisement No.21/2016 which has been published for appointment of teacher in the examination conducted in the name of Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Examination-2016 conducted by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission in which she has participated and declared to be successful in the written examination, thereafter she was supposed to appear before the concerned respondent for document verification but could not be able to present herself on or before the date provided and in consequence thereof, her candidature was rejected against which this writ petition has been filed inter alia on the ground that the petitioner is living in the remote area of the district of Simdega where there is no facility of internet and therefore, due to the reason beyond her control, she could not be able to present herself on or before the date of scrutiny of its testimonials, therefore, the authorities have rejected her candidature, the same is nothing but an arbitrary action on their part since they have not taken into consideration the difficulty which is being faced by the candidates living in the remote areas and further the plea has been taken by referring to the condition as stipulated under condition No.4(kha) whereby and whereunder it has been provided that before cancelling the candidature, adequate opportunity of hearing to such candidates would be provided. Further ground has been taken during the said course that the petitioner was suffering from physical ailment and in order to substantiate the argument, a medical certificate has been annexed to the writ petition.
(3.) Mr. Sanjay Piprawal, learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission has vehemently opposed the ground and submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner by arguing that the terms of advertisement is binding upon one or the other candidates. The terms of the advertisement is that the candidate is to obtain the on-line application form and submit it through on-line mode and will get the e-admit card and in pursuance to the said process the petitioner has offered her candidature for being considered as a candidate for selection of teacher in the Sanskrit subject in which although she has been declared to be successful, as per the condition stipulated in the advertisement she was to appear on 05.12.2018 for verification of the document but could not be able to present herself, therefore, in spite of giving specific terms stipulated in the terms of advertisement, her candidature was rejected. It has been submitted that not only one opportunity was given to the petitioner rather three opportunities were given and even though the petitioner was not able to present herself for verification of the documents. He further submits that the medical report which has been produced is dated 25.01.2019 while the petitioner was supposed to appear on 05.12.2018 and hence, the certificate which has been brought on record dated 25.01.2019 has got no nexus with the physical ailment as on 05.12.2018, the date when she was required to appear for scrutiny of the document and therefore the ground which has been urged by the petitioner is not fit to be considered. He submits that the petitioner with the naked eyes has participated in the process of selection after going across the terms and conditions of the advertisement wherein the specific conditions have been mentioned for each and every process and after cancellation of her candidature now she is questioning the terms and conditions of the advertisement by arguing that the on-line mode ought not to have been stipulated in the notice inviting application rather the direct mode i.e., through postal, was to be resorted to but once the petitioner has participated in the process of selection, she is seized from challenging the terms and conditions of the advertisement and therefore, on this ground also, the petitioner has got no case.;