1. Md. Shahjahan Ansari 2. Asira Khatoon 3. Nagama Khatoon 4. Pradeep Sharma 5 v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 2487 of 2024 1. Md. Shahjahan Ansari 2. Asira Khatoon 3. Nagama Khatoon 4. Pradeep Sharma 5. Manjurl Hoda Ansari 6. Noor Aysha 7. Ishaque Ansari 8. Md. Israfil Ansari 9. Md. Mohsin 10. Atiur Rahman 11. Ainul Ansari 12. Ajijul Ansari 13. Sachin Kumar Yadav 14. Lakhpati Das 15. Vinay Kumar Mall 16. Abid Ali 17. Md. Kamarujjama ---------- ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2606 of 2024 Md. Munshad Alam ………… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2609 of 2024 1. Prakash Kumar Verma 2. Md. Rafique Ansari 3. Vinod Kumar 4. Sanjay Kumar 5. Manoj Kumar 6. Bhishm Turi 7. Sudip Barnwal 8. Anil Kumar Singh 9. Damodar Prasad Kushwaha 10. Manoj Kumar Pandey 11. Pramod Kumar 12. Shakti Prasad Yadav 13. Umesh Prasad Yadav 14. Ravindra Prasad 15. Chintamani Mahto 16. Harendra Prasad Mahto 17. Mohammand Abul Hasan 1 18. Ritu Rani …………. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2895 of 2024 1. Dileep Kumar Das 2. Pushpa Kumari 3. Santosh Kumar 4. Awadhesh Kumar Yadav 5. Santosh Kumar 6. Richa Kumari 7. Dhirendra Nath Das …………. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2964 of 2024 Ramswarup Prasad Yadav …………… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents 1. Devdhari Prajapati 2. Balchand Thakur With W.P.(S). No. 2076 of 2024 ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ……….. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2275 of 2024 Sharat Chandra Mahto …………. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………….. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2378 of 2024 1. Elisaba Minz 2. Roma Manisha Kujur 3. Wilson Toppo 4. Rashmi Nirmala Ekka 5. Sushma Minj 6. Shashi Kanta Tirkey 7. Shivshankar Kumar 8. Nibha Singh 9. Priti Pushpa Tirkey 10. Prema Kachhap 11. Rajib Lochan Mahato 12. Subal Chandra Mahato 13. Samir Kumar 14. Rajesh Mahato 2 15. Lilo Mahto 16. Jai Prakash Mahto 17. Rajendra Kumar 18. Manoj Kumar 19. Kumari Gita Mahto 20. Kiran Devi …………. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. …………. Respondents 1. Dazy Lakra 2. Zafar Iqbal 3. Ajay Yadav 4. Ruplal Kumar 5. Md. Wasim Ansari With W.P.(S). No. 2582 of 2024 …………. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand Ranchi & Ors. …………. Respondents 1. Dineshwar Gope 2. Sanu Kambhakar 3. Nirod Baran Kumar With W.P.(S). No. 2639 of 2024 …………. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. …………. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2811 of 2024 1. Manoj Kumar Paul 2. Nirmal Chandra Mahato 3. Md. Jamshed Ansari The State of Jharkhand & Ors. …………. Respondents …………. Petitioners Versus With W.P.(S). No. 2815 of 2024 1. Rajesh Kumar 2. Manik Sen 3. Kumari Namita 4. Dharmendra Tiwari …………. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Ors. …………. Respondents 3 With W.P.(S). No. 2832 of 2024 1. Shabana Shahzadi 2. Md. Amir Sohail Ansari …………. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Ors. …………. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2840 of 2024 1. Raj Kumar Rajak 2. Dilip Kumar 3. Dilip Kumar Das 4. Deendayal Prasad Verma …………. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Ors. …………. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2875 of 2024 Kumari Indu Bala Choudhary …………. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Ors. ………….. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2928 of 2024 1. Sunil Kumar 2. Gour Chandra Mahato 3. Jagadish Pramanik 4. Ketu Ruhidas 5. Krishna 6. Krishna Kant Dubey 7. Pradip Kumar …………. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, School Education & Literacy Deptt., Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Ors. …………. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2929 of 2024 1. Chaitali Das 2. Archana Lakra 3. Madhuri Kerketta 4. Anima Kumari 5. Christ Jayanti Kujur …………. Petitioners 4 Versus The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, School Education & Literacy Deptt. , Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Ors. …………. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2954 of 2024 Ganesh Narayan Gupta …………. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Ors. …………. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioners For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
: M/s. Abdullah Umar, K.S. Nanda, Ankit Apurva, Shubham Mishra, Nitesh Kumar, Shubham Gautam, Abhishek Kr. Dubey, Anuj Kr. Trivedi, R.N. Chatterjee, Rajesh Bhushan, Shyam Sunder Pd. Kushwaha, Amit Kr. Verma, Kaustav Roy, Apurv Shekhar Pd. Gupta, Advocates : Mr. Achyut Keshav, AAG-V Mr. J.F. Toppo, GA-V Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, SC-I Mr. Prabhat Kumar, SC-II Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC(L&C)-I Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, AC to AG Ms. Chaitali Ch. Sinha, AC to AAG-IA Ms. Divya, AC to SC-III Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, AC to SC(L&C)-III Ms. Deepika Jojowar, AC to SC-VI Mr. Rishabh Kaushal, AC to GP-II Ms. Sunita Kumari, AC to Sr.SC-II Ms. Surbhi, AC to SC-II Mr. Faisal Allam, AC to SC(M)-III 03/ 17.05.2024 Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects, ---------- if any, in course of the day. 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. 5 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 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 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 6 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 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 7 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 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 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. Kunal (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 8