The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 1. Poonam Jha 2. Gautam Kumar 3. Rakesh Kumar 4. Seema Kumari W.P.(S). No. 1703 of 2024 ---------- ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 3267 of 2024 1. Bikash Kumar 2. Jitendra Kumar The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Petitioners ………… Respondents Versus With Sudeshna Mahato ………… Petitioner W.P.(S). No. 3347 of 2024 Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 3357 of 2024 Brajesh Kumar Dubey ………… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2697 of 2024 Binod Kumar ………… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2912 of 2024 1. Viplav Kumar Nayak 2. Kumar Jayant 3. Kumar Goutam 4. Sanjeet Kumar Ravi 5. Ravi Choudhary 6. Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal 7. Sanjay Mahto 8. Deepak Kumar Sahu 9. Anand Kundu 10. Abhijit Chail 11. Mithun Bit 12. Rita Roseline Bara 13. Anjly Kumari @ Anjaly Kumari Versus 1 ………… Petitioners The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 3062 of 2024 1. Purushottam Narayan Singh 2. Pitambar Singh ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 3127 of 2024 Naresh Kumar Mahato ………… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 3260 of 2024 1. Mukesh Prasad Yadav 2. Anil Kumar Yadav ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 3261 of 2024 1. Navneet Anand 2. Md. Hasnain Shahwaz 3. Deepak Kumar Deepak 4. Ritesh Kumar 5. Sanjay Kumar Mandal ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 3283 of 2024 1. Shamsher Ali ………… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents 1. Komal Kumari 2. Anil Mahto With W.P.(S). No. 3284 of 2024 ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 3349 of 2024 1. Bhawani Prasad 2. Ajay Kumar 3. Anupma Rani 4. Sanjay Kumar 5. Koushalya Mahato ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents 2 CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ------- For the Petitioners For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
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 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 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
Arguments
: Mr. Jay Prakash Pandey, Advocate Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate Mr. Abhay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Chanchal Jain, Advocate Mr. Onkar Nath Tewary, Advocate Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AC to SC (L&C) III Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, AC to GA-I Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, AC to GA-III Mr. Vandana Singh, Sr.SC-III Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, AC to SC (L&C)-II Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Rukmini Kumari, AC to SC Mines-III Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, Advocate Mr. J.F. Toppo, GA-IV Mr. Krishna Prajapati, AC to SC-V Mr. P. Tiwary, AC to AG Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, AC to AAG-I-A Mr. Niraj Kumar Mishra, AC to GP-IV 02/ 13.06.2024 Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(S) NO. 1703 of 2024, 3267 ---------- of 2024, 3347 of 2024 and 3357 of 2024 shall remove the defect(s) in course of 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 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 3 for remaining vacancies of Intermediate /Graduate 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 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 4 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 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. 5 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