1.Kishore Kumar 2.Kamla Kant Yadav 3.Kajal Kumar 4.Bishnu Deo Yadav 5.Pratima Kumari 6.Prabhash Chandra v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 1876 of 2024 ---------- 1.Kishore Kumar 2.Kamla Kant Yadav 3.Kajal Kumar 4.Bishnu Deo Yadav 5.Pratima Kumari 6.Prabhash Chandra Dey 7.Upendra Yadav 8.Nityendra Jha 9.Navin Kumar Sinha 10.Ravi Shankar 11.Binod Prasad Das 12.Md. Intyaz Hussain 13.Sitamuni Soren 14.Violet Tudu 15.Dinesh Prasad Thakur 16.Sanjay Kumar Thakur 17.Mita Rani Gon ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 1897 of 2024 1.Surendra Gop 2.Birendra Prasad 3.Lakshman Mahto 4.Rewa Kumari Mahto 5.Ramjatan Singh 6.Jyoti Prakash 7.Dilip Kumar Keot 8.Munni Rani Mandal ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 1925 of 2024 1.Jyoti Hembrom 2.Ramprasad Mahata 3.Satnarayan Mahata 4.Shiv Shankar Kumar Singh 5.Bela Devi 6.Vishnu Kant Mahato 7.Raj Kishore Mahato 8.Mahendra Prasad Verma 1 9.Sumant Kumar Chakravarty 10.Bishnu Kumar Mahto 11.Subhash Chandra Mahto 12.Vivek Jackson Bilung 13.Raina Bilung 14.Swarnima Toppo 15.Ashok Kumar 16.Rishikesh Manjhi 17.Bimlesh Kumar Dubey 18.Pranav Kumar Roy 19.Manoj Kumar Gupta 20.Nikhat Parween ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2280 of 2024 1.Nawal Kishore Sharma 2.Viweka Nand Poddar 3.Santosh Kumar Singh 4.Nilesh Kumar Roy 5.Amrendra Kumar Sharma 6.Nawal Kumar Singh ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2284 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
1.Nutan Anju Barla 2.Satya Premi Toppo 3.Geeta Kumari 4.Firoz Ansari 5.Rajesh Kumar Yadav 6.Nitya Prasad Yadav 7.Randhir Kumar Ambastha ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2360 of 2024 1.Dharmendra Dangi 2.Sanjay Kumar Mahto 3.Deepak Kumar Vishwakarma 4.Sena Sharan 5.Akhilesh Kumar Verma 6.Jay Prakash Bhokta 7.Loknath Dangi 8.Anant Kumar Kushwaha 9.Vikash Kumar 10.Satish Kumar 2 11.Veena Kumari 12.Shekhar Satyaketu 13.Lalloo Ram 14.Jitendra Yadav ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2452 of 2024 1.Mahjabeen Khatoon 2.Sunita Toppo 3.Reena Sarita Minj 4.Ravindra Oroan 5.Rukshana Parween 6.Beena Shashikala Xalxo 7.Tapas Kumar Yadav 8.Kumari Asha 9.Suraj Kumar Singh 10.Sarmistha Kumari 11.Sandhya Purnima Khalkho 12.Reeta Barla 13.Kali Charan Machhuwa 14.Ranju Kumari 15.Kumari Monika Shit 16.Saroj Kumari 17.Chandradeo Saw 18.Babloo Kumar 19.Anup Kumar ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2476 of 2024 1.Md. Fakhruddin Ansari 2.Niteshwari Kumari 3.Bihari Lal Roy 4.Gango Prasad 5.Safique Alam 6.Md. Sarfraz ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate Mr. Kumar Pawan, Advocate Mr. T. K. Mishra, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate 3 For the Respondents 03/ 06.05.2024 Heard the parties. Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, Advocate : Ms. Shilpi, AC to SC (M)-II Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, AC to GA-IV Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad, AC to SC-VII Ms. Shalini Shahdeo, AC to SC (L&C)-I Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka, AC to SC-I Ms. Pinky Tewary, AC to AG Mr. Lav Kr. Tiwary, AC to AAG-V Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, 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. Heard 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 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. 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 4 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 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.” thereafter, 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 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 5 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 7. 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. 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 case of 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 petitioners are found to be similar to the aforementioned writ petitions, the same benefits may be extended to the present petitioners also in 6 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 cases. 12. With these observations and directions, all these writ petitions stand disposed of. Rohit/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 7