Pramod Kumar Rana and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. d.g.r. patnaik, j.1. heard the counsel for the parties.2. petitioners in these applications have prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondent jharkhand public service commission (jpsc) to forthwith issue provisional admit cards to the petitioners to allow them to appear at the examination scheduled to be held on 10th august, 2008 for selection for their appointment on the post of primary teachers.3. it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that in pursuance of the advertisement no. 5 of 2007 published by the jpsc for appointment on the post of teachers in the primary schools, the petitioners submitted their application forms. however, they did not receive their admit cards; they checked in the internet and to their surprise, they found that their forms were rejected on the ground 'language not applicable'. learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the application forms which were made available to the petitioners, there was no column wherein the language was to be mentioned and therefore the petitioners presumed that there was no requirement of filling up the language in the application forms. learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners had applied in response to i he first advertisement no. 5 of 2007 dated 20.4.2007 and therefore it cannot he said that the petitioners' applications suffered from any defect or default.4. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent jpsc, as also the learned counsel for the state explain that as a matter of fact, after first advertisement, a second advertisement was published on 21.9.2007 in terms of which certain amendments were made in the previous advertisement relating to the eligibility criteria, and other particulars, etc. in the second advertisement, it was categorically stated that the applicants must mention one language corresponding to the district opted by the candidate. it was also specifically mentioned in the revised-advertisement that those candidates who had applied earlier in response to the first advertisement have to apply afresh and that applications therefor were to be obtained from the offices of the deputy commissioners/district superintendents of education of the concerned districts. in the mutant case, the applications filed by the petitioners do not contain the essential requirement of the language and therefore their applications were rightly rejected.5. i find force in the submissions made on behalf of the jpsc. as per the advertisement dated 21.9.2007, it has been categorically stated that apart from compulsory subjects of hindi and english besides science & mathematics, history, social studies and geography candidates must also opt for the specific regional language applicable to the district for the applicant has applied. it has also been stated in the advertisement that the applicants who had submitted their applications in response to the first advertisement should also make their application afresh incorporating all the necessary particulars as required in the revised advertisement.6. admittedly, the petitioners in these cases have not furnished in their respective applications the requisite information relating to the language which they ought to have opted. the applications as submitted by them, were thus contrary to the declaration and stipulations made in the advertisement.7. as regards petitioner no. 4 (in writ petition no 4012 of 2008) and petitioners no. 5 and 6 (in the writ petition no. 4009 of 2008) it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the commission that unlike the application forms of the petitioners no. 1, 2 and 3 which were received in the office of the jharkhand public service commission from i lie respective districts through the offices of the deputy commissioners/district superintendents of education, no application which is purported to have been filed by the petitioners no. 4, 5 and 6 was ever received in the office of the commission and as such, no admit card could have been issued. learned counsel for the petitioners submits that except the number of the application form which the petitioner no. 4 claims to have submitted, she does not have any other proof in support of the claim of the petitioners that they had submitted their application forms. as such no admit card could have possibly been issued to petitioners no. 4, 5 and 6.under such circumstances, i do not find any merit in these applications. accordingly, these application are dismissed.