The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government v. of Jharkhand, Office at Project Building P.O. Dhurwa, P.S
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 900 of 2023 1. Pawan Kumar Arya, aged about 50 years, son of Sri BishnuDhari Poddar, Resident of Village-Itkhori, P.O. and P.S. Itkhori, Dist. Chatra 2. Yamuna Nayak, aged about 36 years, Son of Sri Jawahar Saw, Resident of Village- Serad, P.O.-Karni, P.S.-Itkhori, Dist.- Chatra. 3. Ramanand Yadav, aged about 49 years, Son of Banshidhar Yadav, Resident of Village- Proriya, P.O.-Badgawn, P.S. Mayurhand, Dist.-Chatra. 4. Sanjay Kumar Ram, aged about 49 years, Son of Late Sridhar Ram, Resident of Village- Dhangawan, P.O. & P.S.- Mayurhand, Dist.-Chatra. 5. Surendra Prasad, aged about 39 years, Son of Sri Shyamlal Mahato, Resident of Village-Mayurhand, P.O. & P.S.- Mayurhand, Dist.-Chatra. 6. Birendra Kumar Sinha, aged about 49 years, Son of Late Lalji Sahay Ambastha, Resident of Village-Pakariya, P.O. & P.S. Itkhori, Dist. Chatra.
Legal Reasoning
7. Vijay Mahato, aged about 43 years, Son of Sri Preman Mahato, Resident of Village- Parsanni, P.O. & P.S.-Itkhori, Dist. Chatra. 8. Rajendra Prajapati, aged about 49 years, Son of Sri Mangar Prajapati, Resident of Village- Kalyanpur, P.O. Karni, P.S.- Itkhori, Dist. Chatra. 9. Sahdeo Prajapati, aged about 53 years, Son of Late Janki Prajapati, Resident of Village Kalyanpur, P.O. Karni, P.S.- Itkhori, Dist.- Chatra. 10. Binay Kumar Saw, aged about 40 years, Son of Sri Dulchand Saw, Resident of Village Jarwa, P.O.- Jarwa, P.S.- Charhi, Dist. Hazaribag. 11. Prem Kumar Thakur, aged about 35 years, Son of Sri Indradeo Thakur, Resident of Sinduari (Dighi), P.O.-Nachachi, P.S.- Mayurhand, Dist. Chatra Petitioners … … 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government Versus of Jharkhand, Office at Project Building P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, P.O.- Dist.-Ranchi 2. The Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.O.- P.S.- Jagarnathpur, Dist.-Ranchi 3. The Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Office at Project Building, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Dist.-Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, P.O. & P.S. Chatra, Dist. Chatra. 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dist. Dhanbad. 6. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribag, Dist. Hazaribag. 7. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra, Block Campus, P.O. & P.S. Chatra, Dist. Chatra 8. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad. Dist. Dhanbad 2 9. The District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribag, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribag, Dist.- Hazaribag … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners For the Respondents --- : Ms. Aparajita Bhardwaj, Advocate : Ms. Chaitali C. Sinha, A.C. to AAG- IA --- 07/19.03.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “For quashing the order dated 01.10.2022 (Annexure-7) contained in Memo No. 1372, order dated 31.12.2021 (Annexure-7) contained in Memo No. 2819 and order dated 19.11.2022 (Annexure-7) contained in Memo No. 1733, order dated 05.10.2021, (Annexure-7 series) contained in Memo No. 779 issued under the pen and signature of respondent no. 7,8,9 and 3,9 in compliance of the order dated 01.09.2021, 20.11.2021, 04.08.2021 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3364/2019, W.P.(S) No. 3487/2019 and W.P. (S) No. 3349/2019 respectively whereby and whereunder representations submitted by the petitioners in compliance of the aforesaid orders have been rejected in a cryptic and unreasoned manner which is out and out arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable. ii. For directing the respondents to give the appointment letters to the petitioners in pursuant to the order dated 02.02.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 19/2016 and order dated 11.05.2018 passed in LPA No. 168/2017 of this Hon'ble High Court, as the counseling of the petitioners for appointment of inter trained teachers have already been conducted however appointment letters have not yet been issued to them irrespective of the fact that the advertised vacancy are still vacant.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners were para teachers and they had applied under para teacher category. She has also submitted that there have been repeated orders passed by this Court regarding counselling and ultimately the petitioners were called for counselling but not selected. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that no candidate having less marks than the petitioners have been selected and as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 and analogous cases and in 3 L.P.A. No. 510 of 2023 and analogous case, fresh process has to be undertaken and if the petitioners are entitled in terms of aforesaid judgments , their cases can be considered and accordingly this writ
Decision
petition is disposed of in terms of the said order. 5. learned counsel for After hearing the the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that arising out of the same recruitment process two detailed judgements have been passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, one in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 and analogous cases another in L.P.A. No. 510 of 2023 and analogous cases. The operative portions of the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 and analogous cases are quoted as under: - “57. This Court, on entirety of facts and circumstances, is of the view that the order passed by learned Single Judge needs no interference by this Court and the direction so passed by learned Single Judge needs no interference by this Court and is required to be complied with at an earliest as the vacancies is of the year 2015 and it must be put to logical end without snatching right of candidates, if they are otherwise eligible. Therefore, the appellants State are hereby directed to: I. Initiate the process of counseling forthwith for the present petitioners by way of last opportunity as it is alleged, they have obtained more marks than the last selected candidates in the merit list in the respective districts. The petitioners shall approach the Deputy Commissioners of the concerned Districts, as early as possible, preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. the Deputy the meantime, However, Commissioner of the concerned district shall give proper notice to the petitioners by way of Press Communique, advertising the notice in the local newspaper having the wide circulation in the concerned Districts and also by putting the notice on the Notice Board of the Office of concerned District Superintendent of Education. This Court hopes and trusts that the entire process of counseling will be completed within a period of further eight weeks subject to fulfilling in II. III. IV. 4 V. VI. the eligibility criteria and also if the present petitioners have secured more marks than the last selected candidates. It is made clear that the entire process of selection shall be made strictly in accordance with relevant rules/regulations and judicial pronouncements, as mentioned above, within a the date of four months period of receipt/production of copy of this order. Let it be made clear that no further counselling shall be held for any reason whatsoever as the advertisement for appointment of these teachers are of 2015 and the aforesaid directions have been issued in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, which shall be not taken as precedent.” from 6. Further clarification/direction issued in LPA No. 510 of 2023 and analogous cases as contained in paragraph 33 of the judgment is quoted as under: “33. Since it was the specific case of the writ petitioners that they were never called for counseling and that candidates securing less marks than the writ petitioners were called for counseling and were selected, it would be important to issue the following clarifications / directions in consonance with the specific stand of the various writ petitioners in the batch of cases involved in the impugned order though this Court is not inclined to differ with the findings and directions issued vide order dated 15.09.2023 passed in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022:- (a) Only those candidates are to be called for counseling who have never been called for counseling earlier in one or the other district irrespective of the fact as to whether they had participated in the counseling or not. (b) To enable the candidate to participate in the fresh counseling the concerned respondent shall verify whether a candidate below in the merit list in the concerned district has been ultimately selected irrespective of the fact as to whether such a candidate had joined or not. If that be so, then only such candidate be permitted to appear in the fresh counseling. (c) There should be one counseling to be conducted simultaneously in all the districts as was directed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 and other 5 analogous cases which has been upheld in L.P.A. No. 168 of 2017.” 7. As observed in the aforesaid directions contained in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous cases the petitioners shall approach the Deputy Commissioners of the concerned Districts, as early as possible, preferably, within a period of five weeks. 8. It is sufficient to observe that the question of counselling of one or the other petitioner would arise only if they satisfy the required conditions including the conditions mentioned in the directions passed by this Court in two Letter Patent Appeals i.e. L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous case and L.P.A. No. 510 of 2023 and other analogous cases both arise out of common judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 2378 of 2019 (Paras Nath Mandal versus State of Jharkhand).” 9. This court is of the considered view that if the petitioners are found entitled in terms of the circulars issued by the respondents read with the aforesaid judgments, then only their candidature can be considered. 10. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Binit (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)