PS-Doori, PO-Chiknadih, Sikandra Kumar Rana v. The State of Jharkhand

Judgment

12. Md. Usman Ansari, W/o Md Baxu Ansari, R/o Vill-Dharpahari, Jharkhand- PO-Machhli, PS-Bhelwaghati, Dist-Giridih, 815314 Kasim Ansari, S/o Idrish Ansari, R/o Vill-Dharpahari, PO- Machhli, PS-Bhelwaghati, Dist-Giridih, Jharkhand-815314 Chandan Hazara, S/o Sukhdeo Hazara, R/o Vill-Ghaskaridih, PO-Deori, PS-Deori, Dist-Giridih, Jharkhand-815314. Pawan Kumar Ray, S/o Pitambar Ray, R/o Vill-Dhengadih, PO- Ghoranjee, PS-Deori, Dist-Giridih, Jharkhand-815314. … … Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, having its office at 1st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, PO & PS- Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand. Deputy Dircector, Prathmik Shiksha, Prathmik Shiksha Nedeshalaya, Jharkhand, Ranchi, PO & PS-Ranchi, Dist- Ranchi. Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, having its office at Giridih, PO, PS & Dist-Giridih. District Superintendent of Education, Giridih, having its office 1

5. at Giridih, PO, PS & Dist-Giridih. Block Education Extension Officer cum Chairman Block Label Education Committee, Deori, having its office at Deori, PO- … … Respondent(s) Deori, PS & Dist-Giridih.

------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bajrang Kumar Advocate Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to GA-III 02/ 01st April, 2026 ------

2. Heard the parties. The petitioners, in this writ petition, have prayed for the following reliefs:- “a. For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s), particularly in the nature of mandamus commanding upon respondent authorities to appoint the petitioners on the post of Para-Teacher in different Government School, Deori, Giridih as they fulfills all criteria and selected by Gram Siksha Samittee pursuant to the advertisement issued vide Letter No.3624 dated 2nd of February, 2010 was published under the signature of Respondent No.3 & 4. b. For the issuance of such other writ(s), order(s), or direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may think just and proper facts and circumstances of the case doing in the conscionable justice to the petitioner. “

3. The petitioners seek appointment to the post of Para- Teacher pursuant to the Advertisement of 2010. The only ground of approaching this Court in the years 2026 is that one of the similarly situated person has been appointed on 15.01.2022. Admittedly, the person who is appointed namely, Vishnudeo Prasad Singh had already filed a writ application earlier in 2010 and once he had got a favorable order, these petitioners woke up and have approached this Court.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in exactly similarly type of cases in case of “Damor Nanabhai Manabhai and Others vs State of Gujarat and Others” reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3105 has held that those who seek to claim the benefit after long delay, merely upon noticing that others have succeeded, cannot as a matter of course demand similar relief. The Hon’ble Supreme 2 Court also took into consideration the judgment passed in the case of “State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347. It is necessary to quote paragraph No.9 of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Damor Nanabhai Manabhai (supra), which is as follows:- “9. In the present case, the petitioners, whose services stand terminated, are not identically situated as the writ petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 4293 of 2021, who raised a claim in respect of higher grade pay scales while being in service. Similarly, while a court order in favour of a set of persons may, in appropriate cases, be extended to others who are identically situated, this is subject to recognised exceptions, including delay, laches and acquiescence. Those who seek to claim the benefit after long delay, merely upon noticing that others have succeeded, cannot as a matter of course of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, this Court has explained these principles succinctly in the following portion: In State demand similar relief. “22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under.

22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.

22.2. However, this principle is subject to well- recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.”

5. Thus, this case is absolutely covered by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In this case only when the 3 petitioners found that another person has got a relief, the petitioners have approached this Court. At the time of their non- consideration, the petitioners if they would have been aggrieved, could have approached this Court immediately, which they did not, whereas Vishnudeo Prasad Singh approached the Court immediately. Thus, there is difference between them. Vishnudeo Prasad Singh was vigilant, whereas these petitioners accepted their rejection and slept. Furthermore, the process is of the year

2010. After 16 years, the same cannot be reopened. This will give rise to several complications and will open a pandora’s box.

6. Thus, in view of the fact of this case and the judgment cited above, this writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.)

01.04.2026 S.K.D/CP-2 Uploaded on 07.04.2026 4