NESAR AHMED & ANR.versusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

                        [2014] 3 S.C.R. 144


A                     NESAR AHMED & ANR.
                                  v.
                 STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
                (Writ petition (Civil) No. 59 of 2010)

                       FEBRUARY 25, 2014
B
       [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 10 years, the
  respondent is making the appointments of trained
  teachers and it is not the case of the petitioners that
  untrained teachers are appointed. Appointments are
F made by following the Recruitment Rules scrupulously.
  [para 20] [160-E-G]
      1.3 Further, the petitioners in the instant writ petitions
  did not even disclose the facts pertaining to the two
  rounds of litigation in the High Court culminating into
G decision dated 29.9.2003 (reported as 2003(1) JLJR 322).
  Only after the second recruitment process which was
  held in year 2008, the instant writ petitions were filed in
  the year 2010 or thereafter. [para 20] [160-G-H; 161-A]

H         1.4 Therefore, it would not be permissible to the
NESAR AHMED & ANR. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 147
                & ORS.

petitioners to compare their case with their counterparts A
in Bihar. In such circumstances, this Court would not be
inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners in these
petitions filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution, more so
when it is found that the respondent/ State of Jharkhand
has taken steps in conformity with the statutory B
recruitment rules framed under proviso to Art. 309 of the
Constitution. [para 21] [161-B-D]

                      Case Law Reference:
     (1998) g sec 221           referred to            para 3        c
    CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
59 of 2010.

     Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
                                                                     D
                                WITH
W.P. (C) No. 173 of 2010.

W.P. (C) No. 39 of 2011.

     Nagendra Rai, R.P. Bhatt, Amarendra Sharan, Shantanu E
Sagar, Smarhar Singh, Prerna Singh (for T. Mahipal), Nisha
Bagchi, Pooja Sharma, Sujeeta Srivastava (for Anjali Jha)
Dushyant Parashar, Santosh Kumar, Tapesh Kumar Singh,
Mohd. Waquas, Chandan Kumar (for Gopal Singh), Rakesh U. ·
Upadhyay, Amar Deep Sharma, Prashant Bhushan, Govindjee, F
Dinesh Kr. Tiwary, Chandan Kr., Salik Ram, V.S. Mishra,
Raghvendra Tiwari (for Santosh Kr. Tripathi), Pranav Kumar (for
S.K. Sabharwal), Rajan K. Chourasia, Amit Pawan, Devvrat,
Rajeev Kr. Singh for the appearing parties.
                                                                     G
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     A.K. SIKRI, J. 1. All the petitioners, in these three Writ
Petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, are
similarly situated. After getting the requisite training they have
                                                                     H
    148        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 3 S.C.R.

A acquired the nomenclature of 'trained teachers'. They seek an
  appointments in the schools run by the Respondent-State of
  Jharkhand as assistant teachers. Some IAs filed by several
  similarly situated teachers for impleadment and seeking the
  same relief. It is for this reason that these petitions were
B conjointly heard.
          2. The exact prayer, contained in Writ Petition (Civil) No.
    173 of 2010, would give a glimpse of the nature of the case
    set up by these petitioners and the precise relief which these
    petitioners pray for. This prayer reads as under:
c
          "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may
          graciously be pleased to:
                 i) Issue a writ, order or direction directing the
D
                 respondents more particularly Respondent Nos. 1
                 to 3 to appoint the petitioners and similarly
                 circumstanced Trained Teachers in order of
                 seniority.

E
                 ii) Issue a writ, order or directi'on directing the
                 respondents and more particularly the State of
                 Jharkhand (Respondent Nos. 1 to 3) to protect
                 fundamental right of Primary Education to the
F                children of State of Jharkhand by appointing the
                 Trained Teachers available in the Jharkhand State
                 on the sanctioned vacant posts of Assistant
                 Teachers.
                 iii) Pass such other or orders as this Hon'ble Court
G                may deem fit and proper in the facts and
                 circumstances· of the case and in the interests of
                 justice.
        The background in which these petitions have come to be
H filed is somewhat detailed one with chequered history, riddled
  NESAR AHMED & ANR. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 149
            & ORS. [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
 with previous litigation benefit whereof the petitioners are       A
 seeking. However, we would endeavour to traverse through
 these events in as simple a manner as possible.
        3. As is well known, the State of Jharkhand was created
  in the year 2000. Before that it was a part of the State of Bihar. 8
  All these petitioners belong to undivided Bihar vintage. They
  claim that they are qualified and trained teachers who acquired
  requisite qualification and underwent necessary training and
  thus became eligible to be considered for appointment as
  primary teachers in the schools run by the State Government C
  as per the provisions of the Extant Rules on the subject.
  However, even when the Government was legally bound to
  appoint only the trained teachers, on the basis of an
  advertisement issued on 6.10.1991 by the Government of Bihar
  for filling up of 25,000 posts of Assistant Teachers, the State
  recruited 17,281 untrained teachers out of total appointments D
  of 19,272 Assistant Teachers made in the said recruitment
 .process. This selection was challenged by some persons by
  filing writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Patna which
  was decided on 26.9.1996. The High Court did not quash the
. appointments already made, though at the same time it held E
  that the State would not force a person to confine his .
  application to a particular district. Against this order, Special
  Leave Petition No. 23187 of 1996 was preferred before this
  Court. In those proceedings an affidavit dated 14.8.1997 was
  filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Education, Bihar F
  Government agreeing to appoint trained teacher against
  existing vacancies. Having regard to the averments made in
  the said affidavit, SLP was disposed of vide order dated
  5.9.1997. This case is known as Ram Vinay Kumar & Ors. v.
  State of Bihar and Ors. (1998) 9 sec 227. The exact directions G
  regarding appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers which
  were given by this Court are the following:
      "(i) The Commission shall conduct a special selection for
      the purpose of appointment of these unfilled posts from       H
    150       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014) 3 S.C.R.


A         amongst applicants who had submitted their applications.

          (ii) The selection shall be confined to applicants
          possessing teacher's training/ qualification obtained from
          government/ private teacher's training institutions.
B         (iii) The selection shall be made by holding a preliminary
          test and a written examination of the candidates who
          qualify in the preliminary test.

          (iv) In case the number of persons found suitable for
c         appointment in such special selection exceeds the
          number of posts for which tecruitment was to be made on
          the basis of advertisement dated 6.10.1991, the surplus
          number of candidates who have been found suitable for
          the appointment would be justified against posts to be
D         filled on the basis of subsequent selection.

          (v) The special selection which is to be conducted in
          pursuance of these directions shall be completed by the
          Commission by 31.1.1997."

E       4. In nut-shell, the direction was to conduct a special
  selection for filling up of the unfilled posts from amongst the
  applicants who had already submitted their applications
  pursuant to the advertisement issued and it was to be confined
  to those applicants who were possessing teachers training/
F qualification obtained from Government/ private teachers'
  training institution i.e. from amongst the trained teachers. As
  per the petitioners as on 30.9.1993 there were about 45,000
  vacancies in as much as against total post of 2,09,981, number
  of teachers working were 1,54,751. Furthermore, in next three
G years about 18,431 teachers were expected to retire.
  Therefore, projected vacancies were approximately 63,000. On
  the creation of the State of Jharkhand in terms of Bihar
  Reorganisation Act, 2000 proportionate vacancies i.e. one-third
  came to the share of State of Jharkhand which would mean
H that 21,000 vacancies were available on the date on which this
 NESAR AHMED & ANR. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND                       151
           & ORS. [A.K. SIKRI, J.]

State was created.                                                      A

      5. It is stated by the petitioners that for almost 7 years from
 the date of directions given in Ram Vinay Kumar's Case, no
 action was taken. It forced certain sections of trained teachers
 to approach the Patna High Court by way of several Writ                8
 Petitions. All these Writ Petitions were heard together with
 leading case known as Nand Kishore Ojha & Ors. v. State of
 Bihar and Ors. (CWJC 13246/2003). These Writ Petitions were
 allowed by the Patna High Court vide judgment dated 1. 7.2004.
 In the said judgment it was inter alia noted that there were           C
 number of unfilled vacancies because of which primary schools
 were lying empty. The High Court deprecated the inaction on
 the part of the Government of Bihar in not implementing the
 judgment of this Court in Ram Vinay Kumar's Case, on one
 pretext or the other, thereby creating a human rights problem
 in denying a young generation its right to basic education.            D
 According to the High Court, the solution was simple viz. to
 follow the judgment of this Court in Ram Vinay Kumar's case
 from where the circumstances has been left out. The High Court
 also calculated the number of existing vacancies in the manner
 already pointed out above. On this basis direction was given           E
'to carry out the selection process as per the mandate of this
 Court contained in the case of Ram Vinay Kumar.

     6. The State of Bihar challenged the aforesaid judgment
of High Court by filing Special Leave Petitions in this Court.          F
However, thereafter affidavit dated 18.1.2006 was filed by the
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar alongwith an application for withdrawal of
those Special Leave Petitions. In the affidavit an undertaking
was given that only trained teachers were appointed as                  G
Assistant teachers in the State of Bihar. Further owing to the
reason that the number of available teachers in the State of
Bihar were less than the available sanctioned post and no test
for selection was required. On the basis of this affidavit, orders
dated 23.1.2006 were passed permitting the Government to
                                                                        H
    152       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A withdraw the Special Leave Petitions.

       7. When the undertaking given in the said affidavit was not
  implemented immediately thereafter, some persons filed
  Contempt Petition No. 207 of 2006 in this Court which was
B disposed of by orders dated 19.3.2007 with a direction to the
  State of Bihar to implement its undertaking.

          Operative part of the said order reads as under:

          "In paragraph 17 of the said affidavit in reply dated
c         7.2.2007, it is stated that priority has been given to trained
          teachers in appointment and only if trained teachers are
          not available in sufficient numbers, the case of untrained
          teachers are considered by the concerned by the
          Panchayati Raj Institute (PRI) to achieve the constitutional
D         goal of free and compulsory education for children from
          age 6-14, and in this regard the State of Bihar and other
          answering respondents are complying with the orders of
          the High Court and also of this Court. A rejoinder has also
          been filed by the petitioner disputing the statements made
E         by the State of Bihar in the affidavit dated 7.2.2007.
                 In view of the categorical statement now made that
          the priority will be given to the trained teachers in
          appointment and also the clarification made in paragraphs
          19 to 222 of aforesaid affidavit dated 7.2.2007, we direct
F         the State of Bihar to implement the undertaking given by
          the State of Bihar earlier and also now by the present
          affidavit dated 7.2.2007 in letter and spirit by appointing
          the trained teachers on priority basis.

G               The Contempt Petition is disposed of accordingly."
         8. Still this undertaking was not complied with which led
  to filing of another Contempt Petition No. 297 of 2007 titled
  Nand Kishore Ojha v. Anjani Kumar Singh in which following
H interim orders dated 9.12.2009 were passed.
  NESAR AHMED & ANR. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 153
            & ORS. [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
      "Accordingly, without issuing a Rule of Contempt, we direct        A
      that the 34,540 vacancies shown as available in the
      advertisement published in December, 2003, be filled up
      from amongst the trained teachers who are available, in
      order of seniority. As indicated above, this is to be done
      on a one-time basis and must not be taken as the regular           B
      practice to be followed.

      Let the ContempfPetition be adjourned for a further period
      of six weeks to enable the State Government to implement
      this order and to submit a report on the next date as to           C
      the result of the discussions held between the petitioner
      and the concerned authorities."

      9. Thereafter, the State of Bihar filled up the vacant post
 of Assistant Teachers in terms of its undertaking thereby
 recruiting from amongst the trained teachers who had applied            D
 earlier, pursuant to the advertisement given in the year 1991.
 Many had become over aged in the meantime, and age
 relaxation was given in their cases.

        10. What is narrated above is the history of litigation in the   E
  State of Bihar. In so far as State of Jharkhand is concerned
  (respondent herein), as already pointed out above,
  approximately 21,000 vacant post were transferred to this
  State. The respondent advertised these vacancies in the year
  2002 by giving relaxation in age by 5 years only. Because of           F
  this reason many trained teachers, in which category of the
  petitioners include, could not be appointed as Assistant
  Teachers, being overage. The petitioners, in this backdrop,
  contend that they are entitled to the benefit of Ram Vinay
  Kumar's judgment of this Court rendered much before the
  creation of the Jharkhand State and applied to the erstwhile           G
  unified Bihar and the judgment be implemented in their case
  as well as it has happened qua the trained teachers in State
  of Bihar in the manner explained above. We may point out at
· this stage that respondent State is making appointment only
  from amongst trained teachers. The problem, however, has               H
    154       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A arisen because fo the reason that these petitioners have
  become over aged and wanted total age relaxation. To put it,
  succinctly they are claiming parity with their counterparts in the
  State of Bihar and submitting that when those teachers were
  appointed by giving age relaxation, there is no reason to
B deprive the petitioners from the same treatment which would,
  otherwise, be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the
  Constitution.

        11. The petitioners have pointed out that the respondent-
  Sta te had set up a Committee in the year 2001 for
C implementation of the judgment and even the said Committee
  in its report dated 31.5.2001 recommended that all vacancies
  in the State of Jharkhand be filled with trained teachers within
  two months. The operative portion of the said recommendation
  reads as under:
D
        "Since the Government at its own level have imparted
        teacher training to the thousands and the trained teachers
        were in the hope for the two decades that they will be
        appointed as a teacher. It is totally unjustified and in-human
E       that the Government appoints untrained persons and
        thereby ruined the future of trained teachers. Therefore, the
        committee here by recommends that all the vacancies in
        the State of Jharkhand be fulfill with trained teachers within
        2 months. If number of trained teachers exceeds the
F       number of vacancies, then the vacancies be fulfilled on the
        basis of seniority of the trained teachers i.e. in the order
        of their getting training. Thereafter, the trained teachers
        remained unemployed be appointed against subsequent
        vacancies. In the appointment process the rule of age limit
        be diluted because for the two decades the trained
G
        teachers are waiting appointments and due to this reason
        they crossed their age limit without any fault on their part.
        The other untrained persons may be employed only after
        accommodating all trained teachers. The Government
        should take policy decision for the future if it has to appoint
H
NESAR AHMED & ANR. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND                     155
          & ORS. [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
    trained teachers to impart training to the persons after        A
    getting them selected by the Commission. However, the
    committee is of the view that appointment of trained
    teachers would not burden state treasury, whereas
    imparting training to the persons after getting them
    selected on salary cannot said to be a reasonable course.       8
    Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and expert committee has
    also directed to appoint the trained teachers."

     12. The aforesaid arguments of the petitioner may appear
to be attractive in first blush. After all, judgment in Ram Vinay
Kumar's case was rendered by this Court for unified Bihar. This     C
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 appointments. Therefore, the same
treatment could have been accorded to the petitioners as well       D
who are similarly situated and by quirk of fate became the
residents/ domiciles of State of Jharkhand. However, these
observations would be valid when we see only one side of the
coin. It is equally necessary to take notice of the developments
which happened in State of Jharkhand, after its creation. In        E
~rder to find out as to whether those events would in any way
alter the situation thereby making it to be a different case.

     13. Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the State submitted that after the creation of . F
Respondent-State, it framed its own rules known as Jharkhand
Primary School Appointment Rules, 2002 (in short 'Rules 2002).
These Rules, inter alia, prescribed teachers eligibility test and
the passing of this test is a principle condition for appointment.
Rule 4 of the said Rules provided a lower and upper age limit G
for appearing in the examination to be held as part of the
selection process of teachers. But a concession was given by
the said Rule to the effect that there will be no such limitation
on the upper age for the first examination to be held. This was
on the basis that for a number of years, no examination had
                                                                   H
    156      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 3 S.C.R.

A been held or selection made and all those who had acquired
  Teachers' Training should have an opportunity to appear in the
  first examination. It was intended to be a one time concession.
  It meant that even a person who would attain the age of
  superannuation within six months of being selected or
B appointed, could appear in the examination. Manifest intention
  of this Rule was to give benefit to persons like the petitioners
  herein. Rule 8 thereof provided that the knowledge level for the
  written examination for selection would be the middle level
  examination.
c       14. lnspite of this step taken by the State, the legal events
  were destined to take difficult course altogether. It so happened
  that the non-fixation of an upper age limit for candidates and
  fixing the knowledge at middle level academic standard was
  challenged before the High Court in W.P. (C) No. 5170 of 2002
D and W.P. (C) No. 6135 of 2002. These Writ Petitions were
  allowed and the High Court struck down the unbridled
  concessions given regarding the upper age limit and the
  fixation of middle level as the standard for the written test to
  be conducted. The High Court declared these provisions void
E on the ground the non-prescription of an upper age limit and
  the fixation of middle level examination knowledge for the
  candidates are arbitrary, suffer from non-application of mind
  and not based on any intelligible differentia having nexus with
  the object sought to be achieved. The High Court thus found
F both those provisions violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
  of India, though the said Article was not specifically referred to.
  The court also declared that the said two stipulations were
  against the public interest. For want of further challenge, this
  decision of the Division Bench became final. The Legislature,
G thereupon, amended Rule 4(d) and Rule 8(d). The amended
  Rules provided a lower and an upper age limit and for the first
  examination provided for relaxation of age by five years. By
   Rule 8(d), it enhanced the standard of examination of Primary
  Teachers Training Examination. In August 2002, first
H advertisement was issued for making recruitments followed by
 NESAR AHMED & ANR. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 157
           & ORS. [AK SIKRI, J.]
supplementary/ second advertisement dated 21.4.2003 on the          A
basis of these amend Rules. Even the amend Rules 4(d) & 8(d)
were challenged in numerous Writ Petitions, which came to be
filed in the Jharkhand High Court with lead matter in W.P. (C}
No. 2566 of 2003 titled Jharkhand Rajye Berojgar Prathmik
Prashikshit Sikshak Sangh & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand &            B
Ors. The reliefs sought for in that Writ Petition were the
following:

    (i) For quashing the Rule 4(d) and 8(d} of the Jharkhand
    Primary School Appointment Rules 2002 and the                   C
    amended Rules of 2003 as notified through notification
    dated 1.7.2002 and the notification through 6.3.2003 (as
    contained in Annexure-1 & 2 of the writ application)    ··

    (ii) For directing the respondents to hold selection of
    primary schools teacher by taking examination/ selection        D
    test of matriculation and its equivalent standard.

    (iii) For accommodation of all the trained teachers by the
    respondents up to a reasonable age by giving them
    opportunity of employment and their appointment as              E
    Primary School Teachers to be appointed by the State
    Government by relaxing the age of a reasonable extent.

    (iv) For lifting the one chance bar for appointment of
    primary school teachers from the category of trained
    teacher candidates.                                             F

    (v} For any other appropriate relief (s) to which the
    petitioners are found entitled in law and equity."

     15. In essence, the petitioners challenged amended Rule        G
4(d) and Rule 8(d) of the Rules, 2002 claiming that these
provisions were not only unconstitutional but in violation of the
directions given in the earlier judgment. It was specifically
pleaded that there could not have been upper age limit for
appointment of trained teacher. Though the applications were
                                                                    H
    158        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A invited from only trained teachers but age relaxation upto 5
  years only was given. This was challenged as arbitrary,
  malafide and against public interest. In this Writ Petition interim
  orders dated 13.5.2003 were passed by the High Court
  allowing the petitioners to appear on the examination, which
B was scheduled to be held on 27.5.2003.

       16. Interestingly, one PIL was also filed in the form of W.P.
  (PIL) No. 2769 of 2003 wherein the petitioner had claimed that
  no concession was required to be given to these persons, in
C terms of age relaxation or otherwise and the recruitment be
  made strictly in accordance with the extant Rules.

       17. All these Writ Petitions were heard together and
  disposed of by passing orders dated 29.9.2003. In the said
  judgment various other issues regarding composition of State
D Public Service Commission were touched and considered as
  well. We are eschewing discussion on those aspects as that
  is not relevant for our purpose. In so far as the Writ Petitions
  which were filed certain trained teachers and their associations
  (to which category the present petitioners fall and most of these
E petitioners were party to those Writ Petitions) they were
  dismissed by the High Court with the following observations:

          "In one of the writ petitions, this court issued a direction
          that the three writ petitioners in that writ petition, would be
          permitted provisionally to take the examination or to writ
F
          the examination even if they did not fulfil the age
          requirement or age qualification, subject to the result of the
          writ petition. It appears that some unruly elements on the
          strength of that order forced some of the officers or the
          authorities to issue them hall tickets to appear in the
G
          examination even though they were over aged and did not
          qualify as per the amended rule issued pursuant to the
          earlier decision of the Division Bench. It is made clear that
          those who did not possess the requisite age qualification
          as per the amended Rule 4(d) of the Rules, even if they
H
NESAR AHMED & ANR. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND                      159
          & ORS. [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
    have written the examinations, would not be considered for        A
    recommendation, selection or appointment by the
    Commission or by the Government appearance of those
    who did not possess the requisite qualifications or the age
    qualifi9cation, will be ignored by all those concerned with
    the process of selection and appointment.                         B

           In the result, the writ petitions, other than W.P. (PIL}
    No. 2769 of 2003 are dismissed. W.P. (PIL) No. 2769 of
    2003 is partly allowed with the directions to the State of
    State of Jharkhand and the State Public Service
    Commission not to proceed with the recommendatory                 C
    process until the full State Public Service Commission as
    envisaged by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission
    (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2000 comes into
    existence. It is made clear that the steps so far taken and
    the examinations conducted will be treated as valid. There        D
    will be no order as to costs."

      18. The High Court thus refused to extend the benefit of
total age relaxation but limited it upto 5 years, as envisaged in
the Rule. No further challenge was laid to that judgment allowing     E
it to attain finality. Appointments were made in accordance with
the Rules, 2002. Thereafter another advertisement was issued
in the year 2008 further and further appointments were made
on the basis thereof.

     19. From the above, the position which prevails in the State     F
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 recruitment to
    the post of AssistanU primary teachers.                           G
    (ii) As per these Rules the appointment is to be made only
    from amongst the trained teachers.

     (iii) In the recruitment processes undertaken up to now, the
                                                                      H
    160        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A         state has made the appointments strictly in accordance
          with the Rules and after following the due selection
          procedure from amongst the trained teachers.

          (iv) In the Rules which were framed initially, one time age
          relaxation was provided with the provision that there would
B         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 contained in the said judgment Rules were
          amended and the amended Rules provide for relaxation
c         upto 5 years.

          (v) When Selection process commenced in the year 2002
          -2003 by issuing advertisement these very teachers
          (namely the petitioners) through their associations etc. filed
D         writ petitions claiming complete age relaxation instead of
          relaxation only upto 5 years of age. However, these writ
          petitions were dismissed by the High Court vide judgment
          dated 29.9.2003. This judgment has also attained finality.

       20. In this scenario it would be difficult to give any relief to
E the petitioners herein. In fact, what the petitioners are
  demanding now was sought to be given by the State in the form
  of un-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
F would amount to negating the judgment of the High Court
  though it has become final. Moreover, recruitments were made
  in the year 2003 wherein many such teachers participated. For
  last 1O years, the respondent is making the appointments of
  trained teachers and it is not the case of the petitioners that
G untrained teachers are appointed. Appointment are made by
  following the Recruitment Rules scrupulously. The Petitioners
  in these writ petition did not even disclose the facts pertaining
  to the two rounds of litigation in the High Court culminating into
  decision dated 29.9.2003 (reported as 2003(1) JLJR 322).
H
 NESAR AHMED & ANR. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND                      161
           & ORS. [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
Only after the second recruitment process which was held in           A
year 2008, present writ petitions were filed in the year 2010 or
thereafter.

     21. Having regard to the above it would not be permissible
to the petitioners to compare their case with their counterparts      8
in Blhar. As far as the counterparts in the State of Bihar are
concerned they had filed writ petitions well in time i.e. way back
in the year 2003 in Patna High Court wherein those persons
succeeded. The Patna High Court allowed those writ petitions
vide judgment dated 1.7.2004 directing the State of Bihar to          C
implement the judgment in Ram Vinay Kumar's Case. In such
circumstances this Court would not be inclined to grant any relief
to the petitioners in these petitions filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution, more so when it is found that the respondent/ State
of Jharkhand has taken steps in conformity with the statutory
recruitment rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the          D
Constitution.

    22. Finding no merits in these writ petitions, same are
dismissed. All pending. I.As also stand dismissed.
                                                                      E
R.P.                                        Petitions dismissed.