The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary v. Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1135 of 2022 --- 1. Arjun Kumar 2. Rajendra Prasad Yadav 3. Sikandra Prasad 4. Prakash Kumar Yadav 5. Sukhdeo Prasad Yadav 6. Triveni Yadav 7. Ashok Rana … … Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Versus Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Secretary, Department of Human Resource Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribag 6. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj 7. The District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj 8. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda 9. The District Superintendent of Education, Godda 10. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad 11. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad …. … Respondents With W.P.(S) No. 1333 of 2022 1. Guru Prasad 2. Gangadhar Mahto … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Rajbhasha and Administrative Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resource Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 5. The Director, Directorate of Primary Education, Department of Human Resource Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 6. The Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi 7. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro 8. The District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro 9. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih 10. The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih 11. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra 12. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra 13. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma 14. The District Superintendent of Education, Koderma 15. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh 2 16. The District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh 17. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar 18. The District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar 19. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda 20. The District Superintendent of Education, Godda 21. The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur 22. The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur 23. The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara 24. The District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara 25. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka 26. The District Superintendent of Education, Dumka 27. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj 28. The District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj 29. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh 30. The District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh 31. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad 32. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad With W.P.(S) No. 6349 of 2023 …. … Respondents 1. Samim Ansari 2. Md. Jamil Akhtar Ansari 3. Rukhsana Khatoon 4. Md. Sharfuddin Ansari 5. Md. Rafique Alam 6. Md. Mustak Ansari 7. Nafisul Rahman 8. Md. Mojibul Ansari 9. Nagendra Nath Kumbhkar 10. Uttam Kumar Mandal 11. Triveni Sangam 12. Pramod Kumar Dangi 13. Praveen Kumar Anupam 14. Nirmal Kumar Yadav 15. Arvind Kumar Saw … … Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Versus Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Director, Primary Education, Department of School Education and Literacy Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh 7. The District Superintendent of Education, Koderma 8. The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih 9. The District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro 10. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad 11. The District Superintendent of Education, Dumka 3 12. The District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar 13. The District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara 14. The District Superintendent of Education, Godda 15. The District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj 16. The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur With W.P.(S) No. 1542 of 2022 …. … Respondents 1. Hriday Narayan Yadav 2. Arun Kumar Datta 3. Surendra Prasad Yadav 4. Parmeshwar Yadav 5. Balmukund Yadav 6. Manoj Kumar Yadav 7. Divakar Yadav 8. Vivek Kumar Sah 9. Ajay Kumar Yadav 10. Dilip Kumar Sah 11. Niranjan Kumar 12. Nand Kishor Jaiswal 13. Harinarayan Yadav 14. Md. Samad Ansari 15. Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya @ Utpal Kumar 16. Md. Israil Ansari 17. Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Kumar Rao 18. Asit Kumar Das … … Versus Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Director, Directorate of Primary Education, Department Literacy Development, of School Education Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Dumka 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra 7. The District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh 8. The District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh 9. The District Superintendent of Education, Koderma 10. The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih 11. The District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro 12. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad 13. The District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara 14. The District Superintendent of Education, Godda 15. The District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj 16. The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur …. … Respondents 4 With W.P.(S) No. 3539 of 2019 Praveen Kumar Mishra … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Development, Resource of Department Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi Human 2. The Director, Directorate of Primary Education, Department of Human Resource Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Additional Secretary, Directorate of Primary Education, Development, Resource Department of Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi Human 4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Pakur 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur …. … Respondents
Legal Reasoning
passed by learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous cases, press communique with respect to counselling for appointment of the teachers has been published, it has been replied by them that no such publication has yet been made in that regard. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstance of the cases, the present writ petitions are disposed of in terms with the direction contained in order dated 15.09.2023 passed in L.P.A No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous cases. The respective authorities are accordingly directed to verify the factual aspect involved in each of the present writ petitions vis-(cid:224)-vis the factual aspect/issues involved in W.P.(S) No. 2378 of 2019 [Paras Nath Mandal Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.] and other analogous cases as well as L.P.A No. 203 of 2022 [The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Paras Nath Mandal] and other analogous cases. If on verification/scrutiny, the fact/issue involved in any of the present writ petitions is found to be similar to the said batch of writ petitions as well as L.P.As, the same benefit will be extended to the similarly situated petitioner(s) while following the direction 9 as contained in the order dated 15.09.2023 passed by learned Division Bench in L.P.A No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous cases. Ritesh/AFR (Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Arguments
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Peeyush Krishna Choudhary, Advocate [in W.P.(S) No. 1135 of 2022] Mr. Praful Jojo, Advocate [in W.P.(S) No. 1333 of 2022] Mr. Baleshwar Yadav, Advocate [in W.P.(S) No. 6349 of 2023] Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate [in W.P.(S) No. 1542 of 2022] Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate [in W.P.(S) No. 3539 of 2019] For the Resp. State : Mr. Varun Prabhakar Pathak, AC to SC-V [in W.P.(S) No. 1135 of 2022] Mr. O.P. Tiwari, G.P.-III Mr. Shashank Saurav, A.C. to G.P.-III [in W.P.(S) No. 1333 of 2022] Mr. Shubham Mishra, A.C. to S.C.(Mines)-II [in W.P.(S) No. 6349 of 2023] Mr. K.C. Suman, A.C. to G.P.-II [in W.P.(S) No. 1542 of 2022] Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to A.A.G.-III [in W.P.(S) No. 3539 of 2019] For the Resp. JEPC : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate Mr. Rajvardhan, Advocate Order No. 06 Dated: 21.11.2023 Since the issues involved in all the writ petitions are similar, the same are being taken up and disposed of by this common order with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners, who are at present para teachers, have 5 filed the present writ petitions primarily for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to accommodate them in the counselling process to be conducted for the post of Assistant Teacher in the light of judgment dated 16.02.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2378 of 2019 (Paras Nath Mandal Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases in respective districts under non-para category for remaining vacancies of Intermediate Trained Teachers (Class I to V) and if the petitioners are found eligible, to be suitably appointed as the petitioners of W.P.(S) Nos. 1333 of 2022, 6349 of 2023 and 1542 of 2022 have already applied against the vacancies in different districts in year 2015 under para category whereas the petitioners of W.P.(S) Nos. 1135 of 2022 and 3539 of 2019 being para teachers have applied under non-para category. Moreover, the candidates having lesser marks than the petitioners under non-para category have been selected in the merit list and allowed to participate in the counselling. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner of 3539 of 2019, on instruction, submits that the petitioner has obtained more marks than the last selected candidate under non-para category in the merit list. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners jointly submit that similar issue came up 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, which were allowed vide order dated 16.02.2022 with following directions: the aforesaid “18. As a cumulative effect of observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and 6 I hereby direct judicial pronouncements, 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 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 thereafter, 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. in the Let the entire process be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 19. 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 issued in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, which shall be not taken as precedent. 5. The State of Jharkhand, however, preferred L.P.A No. 203 of 2022 [The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Paras Nath Mandal] and other analogous cases challenging the order dated 16.02.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2378 of 2019 and other analogous cases, which were dismissed by learned Division Bench vide order dated 15.09.2023 with following direction to the State of Jharkhand: “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. 7 District Superintendent 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 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 for appointment 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. advertisement the as 6. It is also submitted that subsequent to disposal of the aforesaid L.P.As, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.09.2023 has disposed of another writ petition i.e., W.P.(S) No. 3406 of 2021 in following terms: “5. In view of the fair submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of in terms of the order dated 16.02.2022, passed by this Court in case of in 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 petitioner is also entitled for the same benefits. 6. Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondentsauthorities 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 8 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that batch of writ petitions led by W.P.(S) No. 1233 of 2022 (Dinesh 8 Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) filed by the similarly situated persons has also been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2023 in terms with direction contained in order dated 15.09.2023 passed in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous cases. 8. On putting question to State counsel appearing in respective writ petitions as to whether in pursuance of the order