TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 1190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d their DPE certificates on 1.10.2009. Since those candidates were already selected, perhaps the JPSC had chosen to receive provisional DPE certificates submitted by those candidates on 1.10.2009. We are of the view that it does not amount to any discrimination. Assuming that the appointment of those four candidates have been wrongly made, that does not confer any right upon the review petitioner to seek for appointment. In the case of STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. VERSUS RAJKUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. [ 2006 (3) TMI 798 - SUPREME COURT] , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if any appointment has been made by mistake or wrongly, that does not confer any right on another person and Article 14 does not envisage negative equality and if the State committed the mistake, it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. The order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record, warranting review of the order - review application is dismissed. - Civil Review No. 32 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 25-3-2014 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Appellant : Mr. Binod Singh For the Respondent-State : Mr.Ram Prakash Singh, JC to GP II, Mr. Sanjay Piprawal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 (4) JLJR 184] was not applicable. The Division Bench of this Court further held that in the said case of Md.Sajjad Ali [2008 (4) JLJR 184], the requirement was only of completion of the course of DPE and not of submission of certificate of passing the course and hence, the said case was not applicable to the facts of the case of the review petitioner. After dismissal of the appeal, the review petitioner made a representation to the Chairman, JPSC, on 12.4.2013 requesting to review the decision. The petitioner also made an application on 12.4.2013 to the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, for review of the decision. The petitioner seeks review of the order passed in LPA No.47/2013 on the ground that (i) the decision of the Full Bench rendered in the case of Md.Sajjad Ali [2008 (4) JLJR 184] was not properly considered and (ii) similarly placed candidates, who submitted the DPE certificate on 1.10.2009 long after the extended dated - 30.7.2009, were considered and appointed and only the case of the review petitioner was not considered for appointment. 3. The respondent-JPSC filed a detailed counter, stating that at the time of conducting th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o consideration the law laid down in the case of Md. Sajjad Ali [2008 (4) JLJR 184] and since the applicability of the decision of the said judgment was not properly considered, the judgment dated 8.3.2013 passed in LPA No.47/2013 suffers from serious error of law, which requires to be reviewed. 8. Mr. Sanjay Piprawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-JPSC, submitted that on the date of examination, the review petitioner was not eligible for appointment in terms of the advertisement, since the review petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualification upto the last date, i.e. 10.11.2008 fixed by the JPSC for submission of the Teachers Training certificate/B.Ed. certificate and the Court rightly held that the case of the review petitioner was not fit to be considered. In so far as Md.Sajjad Ali's case [2008 (4) JLJR 184] is concerned, learned counsel submitted that in the case of Md.Sajjad Ali [2008 (4) JLJR 184], the only requirement was of completion of Teachers Training course , whereas in relation of the selection of the review petitioner, the requirement is not only of completion of Teachers Training course but also of submission of certificate of pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and further extended the date of submission of application form by those candidates on or before 12.11.2007. 11. By perusal of the above said Clause 1, it is evident that the candidates who have already completed the Teachers Training session and had only to appear in the Teachers Training Examination could appear in the examination conducted by the JPSC but they would have to submit the Teachers Training Certificate before the JPSC within three months as fixed by the JPSC prior to the publication of the result. It is also evident from Clause 4 of the corrigendum dated 21.9.2007, those candidates will have to submit Teachers Training Certificate/B.Ed. certificate within three months from the date of written test. The review petitioner appeared in the written test held on 10.8.2008 and he was required to submit his Teachers Training Certificate/B.Ed. certificate or equivalent certificate within three months, i.e. by 10.11.2008, in the light of Clause 4 of the corrigendum dated 21.9.2007 so that his candidature may be considered by the JPSC. Admittedly the review petitioner had appeared in the examination of the Diploma in Primary Education from IGNOU and the examination of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner seeks review of order dated 08.03.2013 on the ground that the ratio laid down by this Court in case of Mohd. Sajjad Ali (2008 4 JLJR 184) covers the case of the petitioner however, the Division Bench has not properly considered the applicability of the said case while dismissing the L.P.A. No. 47 of 2013. This contention does not merit acceptance. In the case of Sajjad Ali , the issue before the Division Bench of this Court was whether the candidates who were declared successful and selected for appointment on the post of primary teacher were rightly denied appointment on the ground that those candidates did not possess teacher training examination till the last date for submission of application and whether in terms of advertisement issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission the only requirement was to have completed the teacher's training course. Taking note of Rule 2(Kha) and Rule 4 of the Jharkhand Primary School Teachers Appointment Rules, 2002 and the advertisement issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, the Division Bench held that the candidates having completed teacher's training before submission of application were eligible for applying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 013 passed in LPA No.47/2013 requires to be reviewed. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-JPSC submitted that four candidates have passed the examination of the Diploma in Primary Education in June/August, 2008 itself, whereas the review petitioner appeared in the examination of the Diploma in Primary Education in December 2008, long after the JPSC examination on 10.11.2008 and therefore, the case of the review petitioner is not on the same footing as that of those candidates. 16. In order to consider the grievance of the review petitioner that he was discriminated, we may usefully refer to the details of the four candidates and the date of their appearance in the DPE examination and date of issuance and production of DPE certificates, which are as follows:- Name Appeared in DPE examination Date of issuance of DPE certificate Date of production of DPE certificate Amit Kumar Das June, 2008 20.1.2009 1.10.2009 Anil Kumar Rawani June, 2008 9.1.2009 1.10.2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
