NESAR AHMED & ANR. versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 3 S.C.R. 144 · Decided: 25-02-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S. NIJJAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 144 
NESAR AHMED & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 
(Writ petition (Civil) No. 59 of 2010) 
FEBRUARY 25, 2014 
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW: 
c 
Appoitment - Trained teachers in State of Jharkhand -
Filing writ petitions in Supreme Court - Seeking directions to 
respondent-authorities to appointment them as Assistant 
Teachers in Government Schools in order of seniority 
irrespective of their being overage, in terms of judgment in 
0 
Ram Vinay Kumar's case as followed in State of Bihar - Held: 
State of Jharkhand has framed its own rules for recruitment 
to posts of Assistant/primary teachers - Further, in terms of 
High Court order, the rules were amended and appointments 
were made by following the recruitment rules scrupulously --
E Therefore, it would not be permissible to petitioners to compare 
their case with their counterparts in Bihar --In such 
circumstances, Court would not be inclined to grant any relief 
to petitioners in the petitions filed under Art. 32 of the 
Constitution, more so when it is found that respondent/State 
of Jharkhand has taken steps in conformity with the statutory 
F recruitment rules framed under provisp to Art. 309 of the 
Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 32 and 309. 
The petitioners in the instant writ petitions, having 
acquired the requisite training and thus called as 'trained 
G teachers', prayed for directions to respondents nos. 1 to 
3, inter alia, to appoint them and similarly circumstanced 
trained teachers, as Assistant Teachers in the 
Government Schools of the State of Jharkhand, in order 
of seniority, irrespective of their being over age. They 
H 
144 
NESAR AHMED & ANR. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 145 
& ORS. 
claimed that they were entitled to appointments in terms 
A 
of the directions of the Patna High Court in the writ 
petition decided in the case of Ram Vinay Kumar & Ors1• 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The judgment in Ram Vinay Kumar's case 
B 
was rendered by this Court for unified Bihar. This 
judgment, after the bifurcation of the State into two, has 
been implemented in the State of Bihar irrespective of the 
fact that those trained teachers in State of Bihar had 
become overage, 
they have 
been 
given the C 
appointments. The position which prevails in the State of 
Jharkhand, can be summarised as below: 
(i) After the constitution of the formation of the State 
of Jharkhand it has framed its own Rules for D 
· recruitment to the post of A~~istant/ primary teachers. 
(ii) As per these Rules the appointment Is to be made 
only from amongst the trained teachers. 
(iii) In the recruitment processes undertaken, the . E 
State has made the appointments strictly in 
accordance with the Rules and after following the 
due selection procedure from amongst the trained 
teachers. 
· 
F 
(iv) In the Rules which were framed initially, one time 
age relaxation was provided with the provision that 
there would not be any upper age limit. However, that 
Rule was challenged before the High Court and High 
Court struck down the said Rule as un-
constitutional. Complying with the directions G 
contained in the said judgment, Rules were 
amended and the amended Rules provide for 
relaxation upto 5 years. 
1. 
Ram Vinay Kumar & Ors. v. Sate of Bihar and Ors. (1998) 9 SCC 227. 
H . 
146 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
(v) When Selection process commenced in the year 
2002 -2003 by issuing advertisement these very 
teachers (namely the petitioners) through their 
associations etc. filed writ petitions claiming 
complete age relaxation instead of relaxation only 
B 
upto 5 years of age. However, these writ petitions 
were dismissed by the High Court by judgment 
dated 29.9.2003. This judgment has also attained 
finality. [para 12 and 19] [155-C-D; 159-F-H; 160-A-D] 
C 
Ram Vinay Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 
(1998) 9 sec 227-referred to. 
1.2 In the circumstances, no relief can be given to the 
petitioners. In fact, what the petitioners are demanding 
was sought to be given by the State in the form of un-
D amended Rule 4 by providing one time relaxation in 
upper age limit. However, that Rule has been struck down 
as un-constitutional. Giving the relief claimed in these writ 
petitions would amount to negating the judgment of the 
High Court though it has become final. Moreover, 
E recruitments were made in the year 2003 wherein many 
such teachers participated. For last

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.