1.Vijay Kumar Khariya 2.Shanti Toppo 3.Nilima Baxla ……… v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 2534 of 2024 ---------- 1.Vijay Kumar Khariya 2.Shanti Toppo 3.Nilima Baxla ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 3022 of 2024 1.Ravindra Ohdar 2.Hari Prasad Mahato 3.Brajesh Kumar Singh 4.Manoj Kumar Mondal 5.Mahesh Prasad Mandal 6.jaynandan Prasad Verma 7.Suman Kumar Mahto ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2695 of 2024 Suman Kumar Ray ………… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2888 of 2024 1.Vivek Vibhuti 2.Vikas Kumar ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2927 of 2024 1.Nirmala Kumari 2.Rajesh Ranjan ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2931 of 2024 Neetu Bharti ………… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2935 of 2024 1.Indu Kerketta 2.Ram Kishun Saw 3.Md. Ayub Khan 1
Legal Reasoning
4.Pankaj Kumar Keshri 5.Sanjeet Kumar ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2949 of 2024 1.Laxmi Kumari 2.Subhash Pratik 3.Bibhasha Murmu 4.Sanjiv Kumar Soren 5.Pradeep Kumar Soren ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2951 of 2024 1.Roshan Ram 2.Santoshi Kujur 3.Bhupeseh Kashyap 4.Akhilesh Kumar Pandey ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2966 of 2024 1.Binay Kumar Jha 2.Mukesh Patanwar 3.Shyama Prasad Ojha ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2967 of 2024 1.Mister Jinno 2.Prasant Kumar Bhakat 3.Zahid Fazal 4.Md. Aslam Ansari 5.Md. Imran Ansari 6.Tapash Rajak ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 3089 of 2024 1.Arshi Nigar 2.Pratima Tigga 3.Jyoti Madhuri Toppo 4.Anjum Praween The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Petitioners ………… Respondents Versus With 2 1.Sajan Kumar 2.Anil Dayal 3.Md. Sanaul Haque 4.Pragya Nand Dubey 5.Arvind Kumar Mishra 6.Nand Kishore Turi 7.Ambika Yadav W.P.(S). No. 3286 of 2024 ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2930 of 2024 1.Surendra Vishwakarma 2.Satish Kumar ………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents ------- CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioners For the Respondents : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Bhushan, Advocate Mr. A. K. Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Lalit Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Ashit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mrs. Sarita Gupta, Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate Ms. Sarita Gupta, Advocate Mr. Tapan Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate Ms. Anupama, Advocate Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate : Mr. J. F. Toppo, GA-V Mr. Nail Abhijit Toppo, AC to GA-V Mr. Achyut Keshav, AAG-V Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to GA-III Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, GA.-I Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr. SC-I Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, AC to SC-III Mr. Niraj Kumar Mishra, AC to GP-IV Mr. Krishna Kumar Bhatt, AC to SC-I Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. SC-I ---------- 3 03/ 12.06.2024 Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(S) No.2534 of 2024 shall remove the defect(s) in course of day. Defect(s) as pointed-out by the office in W.P.(S) No.3022 of 2024 is ignored for the present. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to make suitable correction in course of day in the name of petitioner No.6. 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 /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 4 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 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.” 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 also if the present petitioners have secured more marks than 5 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 petition is found to be similar to the aforementioned writ petition, 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