1. Learned counsels for the parties are present.

2. W.P.(S) No.4936 of 2023 has been filed for the following reliefs:

“1. That in the instant writ application the petitioners pray for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) as may appear just and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioners for the following reliefs:

a) For direction upon the respondents to provide adequate opportunity to the petitioners to present their documents for verification before respondent Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred as "JSSC") and forthwith subject to fulfilment of requisite eligibility by the petitioners consider & recommend the candidature of the petitioners for being appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher on account of being successful in the Combined Graduate Trained Teachers Competitive Examination 2016 i.e. CGTTCE- 2016 conducted by the Respondent-JSSC, as the petitioners possess requisite qualifications (Annexure-2 Series) pursuant to the Advertisement No. 21/2016 (Annexure-1).

b) To hold that mere publishing list of roll numbers of shortlisted candidates on website (Annexure-4 Series) cannot be considered as proper communication or providing sufficient notice and opportunity to the Petitioners, particularly when all other communications between the petitioners and respondent-JSSC were held via emails, and after seeking response from the respondentJSSC be pleased to pass appropriate orders and directions commanding upon them to appoint the Petitioners considering the fact that they are better in merit and are also fulfilling the other conditions and qualifications for the post.

c) For direction upon the respondents to issue merit list in light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 02.08.2022 passed in Satyajit Kumar & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 954 to publish merit list in each subject against the respective categories with respect to entire state more particularly considering the fact that there are already vacant posts of teachers in the State and the same shall be adjusted accordingly on the basis of individual merit of the candidates. AND/OR

d) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s), particularly a Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to immediately and forthwith consider.”

3. W.P.(S) No.5768 of 2023 has been filed for the following relief:

“(1) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) commanding upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear and submit the required certificates in terms of the letter dated 02.04.2019, issued by the Office of Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, whereby and whereunder, the last date for submitting the aforesaid documents has been mentioned as 09.04.2019, as the same was never communicated to the petitioner by any letter or post or by an e-mail or by making a phone call; And/Or,

(ii) For further issuance of an writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) appropriate as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

4. These two writ petitions arise out of the same recruitment process i.e. Advertisement No.21 of 2016 and, therefore, they have been tagged together. The terms and conditions of the advertisement have been annexed in W.P.(S) No.4936 of 2023 and a counter affidavit has also been filed in the said case but neither the terms and conditions of the advertisement are available in the records of W.P.(S) No.5768 of 2023 nor any counter affidavit has been filed but the issues are similar in nature in both the writ petitions.

5. In W.P.(S) No.4936 of 2023, the petitioners are seeking relief after the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in connection with the same recruitment process as mentioned in the prayer itself by stating that no independent communication/email was issued to them to come for counseling due to which they could not participate.

6. In W.P.(S) No.5768 of 2023, the petitioner raised a similar grievance in connection with non-communication of the earlier letter issued by the Office of Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, whereby the last date for submitting the documents was mentioned as 09.04.2019 by stating that the same was never communicated to the petitioner by any letter or post or by an email or by making a phone call.

7. The foundational facts of W.P.(S) No.4936 of 2023 are as under:

(a) The petitioners had participated in the selection process under Advertisement No.21 of 2016 for the appointment of teachers under Combined Graduate Trained Teachers in different subjects and districts.

(b)The petitioners had received communication via email from Jharkhandssc@rediffmail.com titled “Application Login Details” and also received further communication through email including an email titled “Admit Card download intimation for Combined Graduate Trained Teachers Competitive Exam – 2016” that their admit cards have been uploaded against their application number.

(c) Finally, the petitioners were allowed to appear in the examination held for the compulsory paper on 19.11.2017 and the Sanskrit paper on 25.11.2017 at their allotted centres and after the said examinations were held, an email from noreply@jssc.com was received by the petitioners informing that their registration for JSSC Form 2017 has been successful. None of the petitioners received any communication/information from respondent JSSC between December 2017 to April 2023 regarding their results of being shortlisted.

(d)All of a sudden in the year 2023, they came to know that eligible shortlisted candidates had been asked to go to Namkum, Ranchi for counseling and document verification whereupon on checking JSSC website petitioner nos.1 and 2 found that vide notice dated 11.05.2023 and 30.05.2023 respectively “list of candidates shortlisted against vacancy of direct recruitment” was posted on the website by which the candidates were called for verification of the certificate/documents. The roll numbers of the petitioner nos.1 to 4 were mentioned on the website and they were shortlisted candidates.

(e) The petitioners vide different representations to the respondent-JSSC raised their grievance that due to noncommunication of information to them regarding counseling and document verification held by respondent via any mode i.e. letter, mobile/ email /phone /message or any other manner, they could not appear before JSSC on the scheduled date and they requested for allotment of another date for counseling and verification of their documents but no response was received from JSSC and ultimately the present writ petition has been filed.

8. It is the case of the petitioners during the course of the argument that when earlier communications were received through email, the respondent-JSSC ought to have sent individual emails to the candidates instead of publishing the same on the website and account of such action on the part of the respondent-JSSC the petitioners have been deprived of participating in the counseling and, therefore, they are seeking a mandamus from this Court so that they could also participate in the counseling process.

9. The learned counsel has referred to the advertisement and submits that the email address of JSSC has been mentioned at the top of the advertisement and so far as Clause 4 (x) (viii) is concerned, though it provides that all the information regarding the examination would be uploaded in the website but at sub-clause (x) it has been mentioned that the final marks of the examination would be uploaded in the website. The learned counsel submits that there is a gap and, therefore, the communications having been made earlier through email, fresh communications ought to have been made through email which have not been done and consequently the present writ petition be allowed.

10. A counter-affidavit has been filed in W.P.(S) No.4936 of 2023 wherein the mode of communication in connection with the petitioners has been mentioned in paragraph no.12 as under:

“12 That it is further emphasized that the petitioners were provided enough opportunities for appearing in the document verification, the details of which are as under:

Petitioner No.1	Name	Roll No.	Subject	Dates on which petitioner were called for document verification	Medium of dissemination of information about scheduling of document verification by JSSC
1.	Ramesh Kumar	11112112327	Sanskrit	17.05.2023, 19.05.2023, 23.05.2023	(i) By JSSC Authorized website
2.	Shashank Singh	18118182247	Sanskrit	02.06.2023, 05.06.2023, 08.06.2023	(i) By JSSC Authorized website
3.	Chandra Prakash	26112222614	Sanskrit	07.12.2022, 16.12.2022, 13.02.2023	(i) By JSSC Authorized website
4.	Santosh Arya	30114274358	Sanskrit	07.12.2022, 16.12.2022, 13.02.2023	(i) By JSSC Authorized website

11. A reference has been made to Clause 16.4 (d) (iv) of the prospectus of examination that the candidature of the candidate is liable to be cancelled in case of non-submission of required documents in document verification. The contention of the petitioners that they were unaware of the document verification due to the notices being published on the website, has been controverted by stating in paragraph no.15 that the entire process of publication of the advertisement, filling up of application form, downloading of admit card, publication of document verification notice, results etc. are being done through the website of the Commission. The petitioners had appeared in the examination which was published on the website after applying in the online mode and, therefore, it is not open to them to claim ignorance of the document verification notice. It has also been stated in the counter-affidavit that the deadlines cannot be relaxed otherwise it would be a never-ending process.

12. A reference has also been made by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4038 of 2022 (Satyajit Kumar and others vs. State of Jharkhand and others) and other analogous cases and also order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 15.12.2022 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No.612/2022 (Soni Kumari VS. K Ravi Kumar & Ors.) in connection with the same recruitment process wherein a direction was issued to complete the entire recruitment process within a period of three months from the date of the order and thereafter the process of document verification started regarding shortlisting of candidates. It has also been mentioned that given the time bar by the Hon’ble Apex Court to complete the entire recruitment process sending letters by post to shortlisted candidates would have delayed the process and none of the shortlisted candidates including the petitioners have been sent letters by post after the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court to complete the process in time bound manner. It has been stated that all the shortlisted candidates have been informed via the Commission’s authorized website and many shortlisted candidates have also participated in the document verification programme.

13. The learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.975 of 2019 (Shyamal Kumar Das Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others) decided on 29.04.2019 and also judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.1522 of 2019 (Basanti Kerketta Vs. the State of Jharkhand and others) wherein it has been held that it was not permissible for the petitioner of the said case to take a stand that communication ought to have been through post when the specific stipulation was made regarding process to be conducted online. No rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed.

14. So far as W.P(S) No. 5768 of 2023 is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that she had also participated in the selection process arising out of same Advertisement No.21 of 2016 and fulfils all the criteria; she had applied under the category of Schedule Caste for Hindi subject and was issued the admit card; she submitted all the relevant documents in support of her candidature and by terms of the notification dated 02.04.2019, she along with other candidates were declared successful and were to submit all the relevant documents on 09.04.2019. The petitioner was unaware of the fact that the result could be published in such a random manner and also owing to her difficulty she was unable to check the website of JSSC and as such the notification dated 02.04.2019 was not in the knowledge of the petitioner. It is her further case that the petitioner being a lady belonging to a Scheduled Caste community, residing in a remote village in Dhanbad far away from regular internet facilities and has internet access only seldom when she visits an internet cafe and, therefore, the petitioner is seeking a mandamus from this Court so that she could submit the required certificate in terms of the letter dated 02.04.2019 issued by the office of controller of examination JSSC. The petitioner had also filed representation vide letter dated 07.06.2023 for redressal of grievances.

15. The learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the counter-affidavit filed in W.P.(S) No.4936 of 2023 for consideration in W.P.(S) No.5768 of 2023 by stating that the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court may be taken into consideration for the disposal of the case and the judgments are available in public domain.

Findings of this Court

16. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the entire recruitment process relates to Advertisement No.21 of 2016; upon perusal of the advertisement, it is apparent from Clause 4 (x) (viii) that all the information regarding examination would be made available through the website including the result. Clause 4 (x) (viii), (ix) and (x) are quoted as under:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

17. It is not in dispute the entire process of publication of the advertisement, filling up of application form, downloading of admit card, publication of document verification notice, results etc. were done through the official website of the respondent-JSSC.

18. This Court finds that further counseling was directed under the order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyajit Kumar (supra) and subsequent order dated 15.12.2022 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No.612/2022 (supra).

19. In paragraph 26.3 of the judgment in the case of Satyajit Kumar (supra) which is the operative portion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has rejected the plea that the judgment be given prospective effect after recording the fact that the petitioners were always vigilant and the proceedings right from the beginning was given wide publicity through notices published through newspapers by the orders of the High Court so that interested persons could intervene and consequently interested persons had intervened and their interventions were allowed. Paragraph 26.3 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under:-

"26.3 In the present case, impugned Notification/Order is of the year 2016 The TGT recruitment process was initiated vide advertisement dated 28.12.2016 as modified on 04.02.2017 and same came to be challenged during the pendency of the recruitment process in the year 2017 itself it is also required to be noted that by order dated 21.2.2019 the Division Bench of the High Court directed that notice be published in the daily newspapers having wide circulation about institution of the wit petition so that the person interested may intervene in the writ petition. Pursuant to such notice, several interlocutory applications/intervener applications came to be filed, which came to be allowed by the High Court. Thereafter, by order dated 18.09.2019, taking into consideration the question of Constitutional importance involved in the matters, the Division Bench of the High Court referred the matter to be decided by a Larger Bench. By the same order dated 18.09.2019, the High Court stayed the further implementation and operation of the impugned Notification No.5938 and Order No 5939 dated 14/2016 subject to the appointments already made, if any Thus, from the aforesaid it can be seen that the original writ petitioners are always vigilant and diligent and approached the High Court at the first available opportunity. Their valuable right for consideration of their cases for appointment in the Scheduled Districts/Areas have been taken away. They have been successful before the High Court Therefore, in the facts and circumstance of the case, the decision relied upon on behalf of the appellants to make impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court prospectively shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer on behalf of the appellants herein to make the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court applicable prospectively, deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.”

20. Thus, the pendency of the dispute arising out of the selection process involved in the present cases was well advertised and circulated and the public at large was made aware through paper publication and interested parties also intervened in the matter. It is neither the case of the petitioners that they were not aware of the pending litigation in connection with the recruitment process nor it could have been their case under the facts and circumstances of this case.

21. In the aforesaid circumstances and the given fact that the entire process of publication of the advertisement, filling up of application form, downloading of admit card, publication of document verification notice, results etc. was done through the website of the JSSC and the specific clause in the advertisement that all the communications in connection with the selection process will be through the official website, the arguments of the petitioner that they were not aware of the notice through website calling for document verification is devoid of any merits hence rejected. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is not open to the petitioners to claim ignorance of the document verification notice. This Court is of the considered view that the document verification notice was in terms of the advertisement itself.

22. The directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in connection with the same advertisement and the selection process vide order dated 15.12.2022 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No.612/2022 (supra) is quoted as under:

“Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties including the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration that out of total 17,786 posts of Teachers notified for which the applications were invited, still number of posts of Teachers in the State both in Scheduled and non-Scheduled areas have remained vacant and taking into consideration the fact that earlier though there was no stay order with respect to those candidates who applied for the non-Scheduled district only, however, the further recruitment was not undertaken in view of the pending litigation and with a view to see that the applications are already invited and the appointments on the remaining vacant posts are to be made on merits considering the State wise merit list and with a view to see that the appointments are made subject wise and the students may not suffer due to pending litigation and due to non-filing up of the posts of Teachers, the State Government is permitted to complete the entire recruitment process within a period of three months from today without fail. We pass further following order in furtherance of our earlier judgment and order dated 02.08.2022 as well as subsequent order dated 02.12.2022, as under –

1. that the State shall prepare merit list state-wise pursuant to the applications already invited;

2. that the candidates who already applied for scheduled area and they were not offered appointments in the scheduled area in view of earlier notification which has been struck down, they may be adjusted as per the earlier judgment and order dated 02.08.2022;

3. thereafter, the appointment to be made with respect to 425 candidates who were the original writ petitioners before the High Court as well as in whose favour subsequently some orders are passed by the High Court;

4. that thereafter the remaining vacant posts meant for direct recruitment (75%) shall be filled in absolutely on the basis of merit as per the state wise merit list and subject wise and after following due procedure as required, namely, counseling etc.;

5. thereafter, so far as the posts remain vacant meant for promotion (25%) are concerned, the same may be filled in by operating the State wise merit list in accordance with law. Meaning thereby, if any candidate for the promotional quota is not available, in that case the remaining vacancies be filled in according to proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules, 2015. However, it is made clear that the merit list be operated and the appointments be made restricted to the total vacancies advertised/notified, i.e., 17,786 posts only.

It is also made clear that High Court shall not pass any contrary order with respect to the recruitment in question. As the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s), who have filed the contempt petitions are satisfied, the Contempt Petitions stand closed.” (emphasis supplied)

23. It is further important to note that vide another order dated 15.12.2022 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No.612/2022 (supra) arising out of the same selection process a direction was issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the entire process was to be completed in 03 months from the date of the order and in such circumstances, the notice for document verification was published in the official website as per the advertisement and no individual notices and intimation was individually given to the candidates. Further, there was a clear direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the High Court shall not pass any contrary order with respect to the recruitment in question. This Court is of the considered view that any direction by this Court to consider the candidature of the petitioner on account of one or the other reason would amount to interfering with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to complete the process within 03 months and the direction that High Court shall not pass any contrary order with respect to the recruitment in question. For this reason, also this Court is not inclined to grant the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioners in these writ petitions.

24. It appears from the counter-affidavit that to comply with the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court by which a direction was issued to complete the entire recruitment process within a period of 03 months from the date of the order without fail, the candidates were called for document verification through the website. Such communication through the website was certainly in accordance with the advertisement itself. This Court is of the considered view that merely because some communication at earlier stage of the recruitment process was received by the petitioners through email, the same does not mean that the respondents were under any legal obligation to send individual emails or make individual communication through any other mode once there was a clear stipulation in the advertisement that the communication in connection with the examination would be made through the website. Further, the respondents have also explained the time constraint about the completion of the entire exercise in terms of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also the fact stated by the respondents that no individual communication for document verification etc. was made to the candidates for completing the process in terms of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and many candidates had participated under the intimation given through the official website.

25. Given the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the considered view that communication through the website was sufficient communication in terms of the advertisement and the petitioners cannot insist that individual communication through email or post etc. was required to be made to the petitioners. The petitioners have not participated under the communication made through the website; no relief as prayed for by the petitioners can be granted by this Court.

26. This Court is of the considered view that if the relief as prayed for by the petitioners is granted, the same would amount to extending the period prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and for this reason also this Court is not inclined to pass any such order as prayed for by the petitioners in W.P.(S) No.4936 of 2023.

27. So far as the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5768 of 2023 is concerned, the petitioner was called upon for verification of certificates way back in the year 2019 on 02.04.2019 but she could not participate and she claims that the petitioner was unaware of the fact that the result could be published through the website which in her view is a random manner of communication; it is her case that the petitioner being a lady belonging to a Scheduled Caste community, residing in a remote village in Dhanbad, far away from regular internet facilities and has internet access only seldom when she visits an internet cafe and owing to her difficulty she was unable to check the website of JSSC and as such the notification dated 02.04.2019 was not in the knowledge of the petitioner. It is her further case that the communication ought to have been made through personal communication and she was unaware of the ongoing developments regarding her candidature. Such a plea is not acceptable on account of the judgment passed by this Court way back on 22.04.2019 in connection with the same recruitment process in W.P.(C) No.1522 of 2019 (supra) before the aforesaid judgment/orders of the this Court wherein similar ground has been rejected and it has been observed that the conditions of the advertisement are binding and the plea of the petitioner that the communication ought to have been made through the post has been rejected in the light of the fact that each and everything was to be done online even the admit card was to be issued online and the petitioner with all consciousness made the application online thereafter the processing time was given and as such after failing to appear before the authority for scrutinizing the document, the petitioner could not take the plea at a later stage that the communication ought to have been made through the post as because once advertisement has been issued specifying the terms and conditions, it is binding upon the parties and once the application has been made in terms thereof, a candidate who has participated in terms of the said advertisement cannot turn around and extend the condition stipulated in the advertisement. W.P.(S) No.5768 of 2023 is fully covered by the said judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.1522 of 2019(supra). Additionally, given the aforesaid discussions regarding the judgments/orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is not inclined to grant relief as prayed for by the petitioners.

28. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed.

29. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.