Jharkhand high court quashed 2400 appointments of trained graduate teachers who were appointed under 100% residential reservation on governor’s order saying “ignoring rights of more meritorious candidates, only on the basis of residence, were absolutely illegal and unconstitutional from its very inception and have to be quashed.”
FACTS
The issue was brought before the high court as a writ petition questioning the constitutional validity of notice issued by the state government authorities as advertisement no.21/2016 which invited applications for appointment to the post of trained graduate teachers, which also stated that only local residents of the scheduled districts were eligible to apply in those districts, thus reserving 100% of the vacant posts on the basis of residence of the applicants after the governor ordered reservation in appointment of class-III and class IV posts in scheduled districts. Thus many applicants were aggrieved by the order since they were not able to apply due to the 100% reservation which led to the aforementioned petition being filed in the high court.
Wanted To Stay Updated & Gain Knowledge. Join Our What'sApp Group Here.
PETITIONERS’ CONTENTIONS
The petitioner’s counsel argued that such order by the state government was in direct violation of the provisions of the constitution. The counsel argued depriving the candidates of outside the districts opportunity to apply was in direct contravention of article 14 and 16 of the constitution and making such laws that curtail the fundamental rights were void under article 13(2) of the constitution and same could not be enforced by the state government. the petitioners’ argument further contended that it was outside the gambit of the state legislature to make laws regarding article 16 of the constitution and such laws can only be framed and implemented by the parliament as per article 35(a-i) of the constitution. The petitioners’ counsel relied on multiple cases including apex court case of Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India and Ors. Which laid down that outer limit of reservation under article 16 could not exceed 50% and contended that same shall be applicable to the present case.
RESPONDENT’S REPLY
The advocate general, representing the state, placed before the court, the presidential notification declaring scheduled areas in the state of Jharkhand supporting the notification issued by the governor since it was for the protection of interests of the people residing in the scheduled districts and such notification was justified since the scheduled districts were characterized by low human development indices, backwardness, remoteness, poverty and since they are in average inferior to the social indicators in the State due to uneven topography, lack of water resources, loss in canopy average of forest and uncontrolled rapid industrialization. He further argued that state had right to make laws to protect the weaker sections of the society and such appointments shall not be quashed. The counsel of intervener respondents contended that the impugned order was justified as it was passed by the government to secure social, economical and political justice to the weaker sections and further argued that it would be better for the school going children to be taught by local teachers in local language which they can understand better.
Wanted To Stay Updated & Gain Knowledge. Join Our What'sApp Group Here.
THE COURT’S DECISION
The court, relying on the apex court case of Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao, stated that the governor cannot act in such manner overriding the fundamental rights of the citizens that are guaranteed under the constitution and said “the impugned notification issued by the Governor of the State, 100% reservation has been provided in favour of the residents of the scheduled districts, totally ignoring the fundamental rights of the citizens residing out of the scheduled districts, and as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such reservation is not permissible under the Constitution, as the outer limit is 50%, as specified in Indra Sawhney's case”
The court rejected the respondents’ contention of local teachers being better and protection of interest of the weaker section by mentioning “This “sons of the soil” policies prescribing reservation or preference based on domicile or residence has already been decried by the Apex Court.” and stated that depriving the children of more meritorious teachers was compromising with the merit of education given to the school children.
Wanted To Stay Updated & Gain Knowledge. Join Our What'sApp Group Here.
The court found the notification in violation of articles 14, 13(2), 15 and 16 and further in contravention of articles 16(3) and 35(a-i) which did not grant state legislation any authority to make laws regarding such appointments. For the abovementioned reasons the court quashed the appointments of 2400 intervener respondents and directed the government to advertise afresh and undertake a fresh selection process with accordance to law.
0 Comments