1. Chandrasheekhar Roy 2. Navnit Kumar Barnwal 3. Nageshwar Prasad 4. Vidya Verma 5 v. ………
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 1806 of 2024 with W.P.(S). No. 1854 of 2024 with W.P.(S). No. 1923 of 2024 with W.P.(S). No. 1369 of 2024 with W.P.(S). No. 1393 of 2024 with W.P.(S). No. 1605 of 2024 with W.P.(S). No. 1687 of 2024 with W.P.(S). No. 1722 of 2024 with W.P.(S). No. 1754 of 2024 with W.P.(S). No. 1844 of 2024 -------- In W.P.(S). No. 1806 of 2024 1. Chandrasheekhar Roy 2. Navnit Kumar Barnwal 3. Nageshwar Prasad 4. Vidya Verma 5. Makbul Ansari Versus ………… Petitioners State of Jharkhand and Others ………… -------- Respondents In W.P.(S). No. 1854 of 2024 1. Angrej Prasad Yadav 2. Rabindra Nath Thakur 3. Manoj Kumar Thakur 4. Suman Kumar 5. Narayan Choudhary 6. Nandkishor Yadav 7. Mahendra Kumar Nayak 8. Amrendra Kumar 9. Balram Yadav 10. Narayan Raut 11. Uday Kant Yadav 12. Bobby Yadav 13. Dhananjay Yadav 14. Gouri Shankar Sharma Versus ………… Petitioners The State of Jharkhand and Others ………… Respondents 1 RC/Shashank In W.P.(S). No. 1923 of 2024 1. Mithilesh Thakur 2. Sunil Kumar Bhagat 3. Pradeep Kumar Bhagat 4. Prem Chand Bhai 5. Siyaram Pandit 6. Sumit Kumar 7. Lala Santosh Kumar 8. Pradeep Kumar 9. Pravin Kumar Sah -------- Versus ………… Petitioners The State of Jharkhand and Others ………… Respondents -------- In W.P.(S). No. 1369 of 2024 1. Sanjay Kumar Mandal 2. Amrendra Poddar 3. Shashi Shekhar 4. Nisha Kumari 5. Abhay Kumar 6. Md. Aslam Javed Ansari 7. Md. Saleman Ansari 8. Rajesh Kumar Mandal 9. Binod Rawani 10. Manoj Kumar Jha 11. Sanjeev Kumar 12. Sanjeev Kumar Singh 13. Pawan Kumar Singh 14. Jitendra Kumar Poddar 15. Dhananjay Prasad Singh 16. Shyam Sundar Sah Versus ………… Petitioners The State of Jharkhand and Others ………… Respondents In W.P.(S). No. 1393 of 2024 Satyendra Prasad Mehta -------- Versus ………… Petitioner The State of Jharkhand and Others ………… Respondents -------- In W.P.(S). No. 1605 of 2024 1. Ajit Kumar Yadav 2. Binay Kumar 3. Avishek Kumar 4. Santosh Kumar 5. Luna Kumari 6. Brajesh Kumar 7. Aeshna Jaymal RC/Shashank 2 8. Usha Kumari 9. Sajeev Kumar 10. Ajay Kumar Sindhi 11. Rajkishor Yadav 12. Pushpa Kumari 13. Jay Prakash Darbey 14. Ranjit Kumar 15. Devendra Mandal 16. Kundan Kumar Yadav 17. Binay Kumar Nag 18. Praveen Kumar 19. Kumari Khusboo 20. Shiba Prasad Gope 21. Sandip Kumar Mallick Versus ………… Petitioners The State of Jharkhand and Others ………… Respondents -------- In W.P.(S). No. 1687 of 2024 1. Pramod Kumar Barnwal 2. Rinku Mondal 3. Ganesh Chandra Pramanik 4. Badal Chandra Mahto 5. Ashutosh Kumar Madhukar 6. Rajeev Kumar Ojha 7. Gangadhar Rajak 8. Deovrat Kumar 9. Vikash Kumar Dubey 10. Surendra Prasad Gupta 11. Kailash Kumar Pandit 12. Ram Shankar Ram 13. Prabhat Ranjan 14. Pratigya Pathak 15. Pappu Kumar 16. Sheo Shankar Mahto 17. Chameli Kumari 18. Mukesh Prasad Choudhary 19. Renuka Kumari 20. Sayed Nazibur Rahaman 21. Md. Mahtab Uddin 22. Karuna Sindhu Das 23. Suresh Kumar Yadav 24. Manju Kumari 25. Manju Kujur 26. Latika Bala Singh 27. Sumit Kumar Singh 28. Mithun Kumar Sagar 29. Nabodh Masat 30. Neha Verma 31. Amresh Kumar RC/Shashank 3 32. Juli Thakur 33. Abdul Faishal 34. Santosh Kumar Saw 35. Punam Kindo 36. Durgeshnandni Sharma 37. Anil Kumar Mahto 38. Deepa Anima Bara 39. Ranjita Kullu 40. Pavitra Kumar Yadav 41. Om Prakash Kumar 42. Navin Kumar Pandey 43. Basant Lakra 44. Kiran Xaxa 45. Prawin Tirkey 46. Prakash Honhaga 47. Rashmi Xalxo 48. Om Prakash Vishwakarma 49. Baleshwar Kumar 50. Yugesh Kumar 51. Madhubala Kumari 52. Sarvjeet Kumar Mishra 53. Pushpa Kumari Gupta 54. Utpala Choubey 55. Manoj Kumar Rana 56. Dipti Gorain 57. Chandrakant Sharma 58. Pushp Nidhi Toppo 59. Rita Sonia Bilung 60. Ramesh Chandra Mahato 61. Hiralal Mahato 62. Ajay Kumar 63. Alice Kujur 64. Thakur Das Mahata 65. Jayant Kumar Sinha 66. Asha Kumari 67. Gyaneshwar Prasad 68. Balram Mahto 69. Krishna Prajapti 70. Madhuri Kumari 71. Subodh Kumar Singh 72. Punit Kandulna 73. Secunda Baxla 74. Suman Baxla 75. Eveline Anita Kujur 76. Sunil Kumar Ravi 77. Gulzar Ahmad 78. Ravindra Kumar Pandey 79. Sudha Minj 80. Rakesh Ranjan Pandey 81. Ravi Kumar RC/Shashank 4 82. Jagrity Ranjan Jolly 83. Vikash Kumar 84. Jay Prakash Kumar Versus ………… Petitioners The State of Jharkhand and Others ………… Respondents -------- In W.P.(S). No. 1722 of 2024 1. Ghazalla Parween 2. Digambar Prasad Barnwal 3. Jaykant Prasad 4. Sanjeet Lal 5. Bikas Kumar Pandey 6. Sanjay Kumar 7. Ranjeet Kumar 8. Rajeev Kumar Mishra Versus ………… Petitioners The State of Jharkhand and Others ………… Respondents -------- In W.P.(S). No. 1754 of 2024 1. Veena Kumari 2. Reena Kumari 3. Arshad Alam 4. Shashikant 5. Om Prakash Kumar 6. Rakesh Kumar Singh 7. Parmeshwar Prasad Dangi 8. Sujeet Kumar Verma 9. Parmanand Dangi 10. Pravind Kumar Singh Versus ………… Petitioners The State of Jharkhand and Others ………… Respondents In W.P.(S). No. 1844 of 2024 -------- 1. Fabiola Murmu 2. Kshiti Bhushan Mahto 3. Pushpa Kumari 4. Uma Dey 5. Haradhan Pandit 6. Shambhu Kumar 7. Madhusudan Singh Choudhary 8. Hemlal Mahto 9. Animesh Nag 10. Subhasish Chanda 11. Sunil Kumar Bhaiya 12. Gajendra Kumar Mishra 13. Balgovind Ram 14. Shambhu Kumar Ravi 15. Santosh Kumar Mahto RC/Shashank 5 16. Lal Bahadur Verma 17. Rina Kumari 18. Ashish Prasad 19. Vijay Kumar 20. Hari Prasad Mehta 21. Shiba Prasad Banerjee 22. Vijay Kumar 23. Naresh Ravidas 24. Sanjay Kumar 25. Hiralal Ray 26. Arjun Prasad 27. Abhishek Raj 28. Triloki Prasad Sah 29. Kanhaiya Thandar 30. Upendra Manjhi 31. Pravin Kumar 32. Jay Kumar Sen 33. Rakhal Panjiyara 34. Lalita Narayan Raut 35. Anandlal Raut 36. Umakant Thakur 37. Dharambir Kumar Bharti 38. Ashish Kumar Mallick 39. Rajesh Kumar Mahato 40. Sheo Kumar Thakur 41. Hargori Raut 42. Md. Asgar Ali Khan 43. Pramod Yadav 44. Ajay Kumar Goswami 45. Sunil Kumar 46. Alok Prasad 47. Harendra Narayan Kapardar Versus ………… Petitioners The State of Jharkhand and Others ………… Respondents ------- CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For W.P. (S). No. 1806 of 2024 For the Petitioners For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate : Mr. Manish Mishra, GP-V For W.P. (S). No. 1854 of 2024 For the Petitioners For the Respondents : Ms. Sarita Gupta, Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, GA-V For W.P. (S). No. 1923 of 2024 6 RC/Shashank For the Petitioners For the Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC-I For W.P. (S). No. 1369 of 2024 For the Petitioners For the Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate : Mr. Aman Kumar, AC to GP-I For W.P. (S). No. 1393 of 2024 For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. Nawin Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, AG For W.P. (S). No. 1605 of 2024 For the Petitioners For the Respondents : Ms. Sarita Gupta, Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Rishi Bharati, AC to AAG-III For W.P. (S). No. 1687 of 2024 For the Petitioners For the Respondents : Mr. Anuj Kumar Trivedi, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, Advocate : Mr. Varun Prabhakar, AC to GP-III For W.P. (S). No. 1722 of 2024 For the Petitioners For the Respondents : Mr. Gautam Kumar Pandey, Advocate : Ms. Pinky Tiwari, AC to AG For W.P. (S). No. 1754 of 2024 For the Petitioners For the Respondents : Mr. Nawin Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, SC-V For W.P. (S). No. 1844 of 2024 For the Petitioners For the Respondents : Ms. Sarita Gupta, Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Aman Kumar, AC to GP-I ---------- 03/ 19.04.2024 Defects, if any, are hereby ignored. 2. Since identical issues are raised, all these writ petitions are being taken up
Decision
together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 4. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to allow them to participate in the counselling RC/Shashank 7 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 candidates having lesser marks than the petitioners, have been called and allowed to participate in the counselling. 5. 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 of the concerned Districts, as early as possible, 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 of Education and thereafter, the entire process of 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.” 6. 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 RC/Shashank 8 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 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 facts and issued directions have been circumstances of the case, which shall be not taken as precedent.” in peculiar 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that since similar issue has already been decided by this Court, present petitioners are also RC/Shashank 9 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. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has no objection to the same. 9. 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 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. 10. Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondents-authorities to verify the factual aspects/issues involved in the present writ petitions 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 petitions are 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 receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 11. Let it be made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case. 12. With these observations and directions, these writ petitions stand disposed of. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC/Shashank 10