The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Chhote Lal Yadav W.P.(S). No. 1629 of 2024 ---------- Versus ………… Petitioner The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Ors. With W.P.(S). No. 1689 of 2024 ………… Respondents Ramnath Singh ………… Petitioner The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Ors. Versus ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 1712 of 2024 1. Radha Krishna Kotwar 2. Ghanenath Mahto 3. Sanjay Kumar Jha …………. Petitioners Versus State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Ors. …………. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 1723 of 2024 1. Noor Amber 2. Prerna Topno 3. Kiran Mahto @ Kiran Kumari 4. Pinki Kumari 5. Md. Mujaffar Hussain 6. Somnath Kumar Shil 7. Shivam Kumar Das 8. Upendra Kumar Das 9. Kashyap Kunal 10. Tapeshwar Kumar 11. Philip Murmu 12. Sikandar Bhagat 13. Vishwanath Kumar Mali 14. Ravindra Kumar 15. Ashok Paswan 16. Rabindra Kumar 17. Raju Ram 18. Jagdish Prasad Mehta 19. Vinod Kumar 20. Naval Kishore 21. Sarita Beng 1 22. Sandeep Kumar 23. Ashok Kumar 24. Md. Imtiyaz Ansari 25. Sudha Kumari 26. Namita Prabha 27. Santosh Kumar Nayak 28. Sanjit Mahto 29. Pujan Kumar 30. Rajeev Kumar Sharma 31. Stella Baa 32. Putul Kumari 33. Sushma Kumari 34. Anju Kumari 35. Pankaj Kumar 36. Mithilesh Kumar Mahapatra 37. Santosh Kumar 38. Pankaj Kumar Verma 39. Pradeep Kumar Verma 40. Rajendra Kashyap 41. Babli Kumari 42. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey 43. Pratima Kumari 44. Deepak Kumar Bagway 45. Bharat Prasad 46. Sushila Hembrom 47. Margret Hembrom 48. Emanuel Marandi 49. Bimukta Bitrag 50. Babli Kumari 51. Ignatia Ipsita Tirkey 52. Jayant Kumar Biswas 53. Manoj Kumar Gupta 54. Sairendri Dash 55. Sushma Rani 56. Md. Shahid Akhtar …………. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Ors. …………. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 1751 of 2024 1. Anupama Marandi 2. Shantina Murmu 3. Sanjukta Kumari 4. Sunil Kumar Sah 5. Babita Bagaria 6. Rumina Easmin 7. Dhananjay Kumar Saha 2
Legal Reasoning
8. Narendra Kumar Saha 9. Prakash Kumar Verma 10. Md. Akhtar Ansari 11. Santosh Kumar Chouhan 12. Mukesh Tiwari 13. Shrikant Mandal Yadav 14. Kumari Archana 15. Sunil Kumar Pandey 16. Neelam Kumari Gupta 17. Ganesh Kumar 18. Susari Surin 19. Sushma Anima Sanga 20. Raju Das 21. Rajendra Kumar 22. Abhinav Kumar Verma 23. Pranav Kumar 24. Jyoti Kumari 25. Ranjit Kumar 26. Manohar Yadav 27. Rajiv Ranjan 28. Shankar Suman 29. Raj Kumar Thakur The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents …………… Petitioners Versus With W.P.(S). No. 1752 of 2024 1. Sudhir Kumar Das 2. Vidya Kumar 3. Santosh Sanjay Singh 4. Bharat Nayak 5. Raju Prasad 6. Ranjeet Kumar Goswami 7. Shivan Kumar Das 8. Tarakeshwar Nayak 9. Soniyan Hembram 10. Renu Kumari 11. Lakhan Lal Mahto 12. Siddharth Shankar Saha 13. Sujata Kumari 14. Prakash Kumar 15. Madan Mohan Mandal 16. Anil Kumar Mandal 17. Niranjan Rabidas 18. Sanjay Choudhary 19. Sheo Kumar Choudhary 20. Nezamuddin Ansari 21. Junaid Alam Ansari 22. Satyendra Prajapati 3 23. Amod Kumar Pandey 24. Sushma Kumari 25. Vikash Kumar Gupta 26. Ramashish Prasad 27. Kusum Kumari 28. Malti Kumari 29. Mamta Rani Poddar 30. Kailash Pd. Yadav 31. Bidhyut Kumar Goswami 32. Rathu Ram Mahto 33. Abid Hussain Khan 34. Nageshwar Nayak 35. Bharat Bhushan Kumar 36. Ropna Sahu 37. Munshi Sahu The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ……….. Respondents ………… Petitioners Versus With W.P.(S). No. 1753 of 2024 Surendra Mahto …………. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 1760 of 2024 1. Geeta Kumari 2. Pradip Kumar Ghosh 3. Bharat Chandra Ghosh 4. Kumari Seema 5. Sarita Kumari 6. Meghmala Tirkey 7. Sandeep Kumar Jaiswal 8. Raj Kumar 9. Radha Mohan Pandey 10. Bhim Lal Shaw 11. Jagat Narayan Mahato …………. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. …………. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 1858 of 2024 Om Prakash Bauri …………. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. …………. Respondents 4 CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioners For the Respondents 03/ 10.04.2024 Heard the parties. : M/s. Vikash Kumar, Sonal Tiwary, Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Harsh Chandra, Kumar Pawan, T.K. Mishra, Shubham Mishra, Krishna Prajapati, Rajesh Bhushan, Ranjit Kumar, Binod Kr. Jha, Advocates : Mr. S.K. Tiwary, SC-I Mr. Binit Chandra, AC to AAG-III Mr. Shivam U. Sahay, AC to SC(M)-II Mr. Zaid Imam, AC to SC-VII Ms. Priti Priyamvada, AC to GA-V Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, AC to SC(L&C)-I Mr. Niraj Kr. Mishra, AC to GP-IV Mr. Mukul Kr. Singh, AC to GP-III ---------- 2. Since, the issues involved in all these writ petitions are similar and identical and as such they have been tagged together and are being
Decision
disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to allow them to participate in the counselling process in the respective districts for which they have applied for consideration of their candidatures under Para/ Non-Para categories for remaining vacancies of Intermediate Trained Teachers for Classes 1 to 5 / 6 to 8 and if the petitioners are found eligible, they may be suitably appointed as they have already applied against the vacancies in different districts in the year 2015 and the candidates having lesser marks than the petitioners have been called and allowed to participate in the counselling. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S). No. 2378 of 2019 (Paras Nath Mandal Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases and this Court after hearing the parties vide its judgment delivered on 16.02.2022, allowed the said writ petitions with the following directions: “18. …….……….. I hereby direct the respondents to initiate process of counseling for the present petitioners by way of last opportunity, since they have obtained more marks than the last selected candidates in the merit list. The petitioners shall approach the Deputy Commissioners 5 the concerned Districts, as early as possible, of preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner shall initiate the process of counseling after giving 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 the entire process of of Education and counseling be completed within a period of further four weeks subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria and also if the present petitioners have secured more marks than the last selected candidates.” thereafter, 5. Thereafter, the respondent-State challenged the said order before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in LPA No. 203 of 2022 and the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court dismissed the LPA preferred by the respondent-State. The relevant para of the said judgment reads 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. II. 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. III. However, in the meantime, the Deputy 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. IV. This Court hopes and trusts that the entire process of counseling will be completed within a period of further 6 eight weeks subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria and also if the present petitioners have secured more marks than the last selected candidates. V. 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 period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. VI. Let it be made clear that no further counselling shall be held for any reasons whatsoever as the advertisement for appointment of these teachers are of 2015 and the aforesaid directions have been facts and issued circumstances of the case, which shall be not taken as precedent.” in peculiar 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that since similar issue has already been decided by this Court, present petitioners are also entitled for the similar benefits, what has been extended to the petitioners of W.P.(S). No. 2378 of 2019 (Paras Nath Mandal Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has no objection to the same. 8. In view of the fair submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, these writ petitions are being disposed of in terms of the order dated 16.02.2022, passed by this Court in case of in W.P.(S). No. 2378 of 2019 (Paras Nath Mandal Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases as well as LPA No. 203 of 2022 and if the cases of the present petitioners are found to be same and similar to the cases of the petitioners in W.P.(S). No. 2378 of 2019 (Paras Nath Mandal Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases, the present petitioners are also entitled for the same benefits. 9. Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondents-authorities to verify the factual aspects/issues involved in the present writ petition vis. a vis. factual aspects/issues involved in W.P.(S). No. 2378 of 2019 (Paras Nath Mandal Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases, and if the facts/issues involved in the present writ petition is found to be similar to the aforementioned writ petition, the same benefits may be extended to the present petitioners also in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of 7 receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 10. Since it has been brought to the notice of the Court that the respondents have fixed the date of counseling on 25th April, 2024, the respondents are directed to conclude the counseling by that date and no further application shall be entertained after the said date in view order passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 2378 of 2019 (Paras Nath Mandal Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases. 11. Let it be made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the cases. 12. With these observations and directions, all these writ petitions stand disposed of. Kunal (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 8