The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Anita Kujur W.P.(S). No. 2488 of 2024 ---------- Versus ………… Petitioner Education Education Education Education Education Education Commissioner-cum-Chairman District Commissioner-cum-Chairman District Commissioner-cum-Chairman District Commissioner-cum-Chairman District Commissioner-cum-Chairman District 1.The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, School Education and Literacy Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand 2.The Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand 3.The Deputy Establishment Committee, Chaibasa, Dist.-West Singhbhum, Jharkhand 4.The Deputy Establishment Committee, Ranchi, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand 5.The Deputy Establishment Committee, Gumla, Dist.-Gumla, Jharkhand Commissioner-cum-Chairman District 6.The Deputy Establishment Committee, Simdega, Dist.-Simdega, Jharkhand 7.The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman District Establishment Committee, Khunti, Dist.-Khunti, Jharkhand 8.The Deputy Establishment Committee, Latehar, Dist.-Latehar, Jharkhand 9.The Deputy Establishment Committee, Palamu, Dist.-Palamu, Jharkhand 10.The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman District Education Establishment Committee, Garhwa, Dist.-Garhwa, Jharkhand Education 11.The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman District Establishment Committee, Seraikella, Dist.- Seraikella-Kharsawan, Jharkhand 12.The District Superintendent of Education, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, Dist.-Chaibasa, Jharkhand 13. The District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand 14. The District Superintendent of Education, Gumla, Dist.-Gumla, Jharkhand 15. The District Superintendent of Education, Simdega, Dist.-Simdega, Jharkhand 16.The District Superintendent of Education, Khunti, Dist.-Khunti, Jharkhand 17. The District Superintendent of Education, Latehar, Dist.-Latehar, Jharkhand 18. The District Superintendent of Education, Palamu, Dist.-Palamu, Jharkhand 19. The District Superintendent of Education, Garhwa, Dist.-Garhwa, Jharkhand Education 1 20. The District Superintendent of Education, Seraikella, Dist.-Seraikella- ………… Respondents Kharsawan, Jharkhand CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
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 2 thereafter, 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.” 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 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 3 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.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that since similar issue has already been decided by this Court, present petitioner is 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
Arguments
: Mr. Bhola Nath Rajak, Advocate : Mr. Sushant Kumar, AC to SC-II 03/ 08.05.2024 Defect as pointed-out by the office is ignored for the present. ---------- 2. Heard the parties. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to allow her to participate in the counselling process in the respective districts for which they have applied for consideration of her candidatures under Non-Para categories for remaining vacancies of Intermediate Trained Teachers for Classes 6 to 8 and if the petitioner is found eligible, she may be suitably appointed as she has already applied against the vacancies in different districts in the year 2015 and the candidates having lesser marks than the petitioner has been called and allowed to participate in the counselling. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the similar
Decision
parties, the instant writ petition is 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 case of the present petitioner is 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 petitioner is 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 petitioner also in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 10. Let it be made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the cases. 11. With these observations and directions, all these writ petitions stand disposed of. Rohit/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 4