The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 ------ 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO Dhurwa, PS Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3.The Director, Primary Education (Directorate of Education), School Education & Literacy Department,Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO Dhurwa, PS Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4.The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman District Establishment Committee, Chatra, P.O., P.S. & District Chatra, Jharkhand. 5.The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra, P.O., P.S. & District Chatra, Jharkhand. 6.The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman District Establishment Committee, Koderma, P.O., P.S. & District Koderma, Jharkhand. 7.The District Superintendent of Education, Koderma, P.O., P.S. & District Koderma, Jharkhand. … Respondents/Appellants Versus Paras Nath Mandal son of Mahangi Mandal, resident of village Bhandaro, P.O. & P.S. Margomunda via Madhupur, District-Deoghar, Jharkhand … Petitioner/Respondent WITH L.P.A. No. 431 of 2022 ------ 1.The State of Jharkhand 2 2.The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Rajbhasha and Administrative Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, PO & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 3.The Director, Primary Education (Directorate of Education), Department of Personnel, Rajbhashaand Administrative Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, MDI Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 4.The Deputy Commissioner- cum- Chairman District Establishment Committee, Bokaro, P.O., P.S. & District Bokaro, Jharkhand. 5.The District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro, P.O., P.S. & District Bokaro, Jharkhand. Versus … Appellants Digamber Prasad Yadav, son of Late DayalMahto, Resident of Taraytand, P.O. Badiyabad, P.S. Bagabad, District Giridih, Jharkhand. … WITH Respondent L.P.A. No. 482 of 2022 ------ 1. The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O.&P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. The Director, Directorate of Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O.&P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Sahebganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahebganj, District Sahebganj. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahebganj, District Sahebganj. 5. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Pakur, P.O.& P.S. 3 Pakur, District Pakur, State Jharkhand. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur, P.O.&P.S. Pakur, District Pakur, State Jharkhand. 7. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Deoghar, P.O.&P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar, State Jharkhand. 8. The District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar, P.O.&P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar, State Jharkhand. 9. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Godda, P.O.& P.S. Godda, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 10. The District Superintendent of Education, Godda, P.O.& P.S. Godda, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 11. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District Dumka, State Jharkhand. 12. The District Superintendent of Education, Dumka, P.O.& P.S. Dumka, District Dumka, State Jharkhand. 13. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Jamtara, P.O. & P.S. Jamtara, District Jamtara, State Jharkhand 14. The District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara, P.O.& P.S. Jamtara, District Jamtara, State Jharkhand. 15. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Chatra, P.O. & P.S. Chatra, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 16. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra, P.O.& P.S. Chatra, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 17. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand 18. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad, P.O.& P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, State 4 Jharkhand. 19. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Giridih, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih, State Jharkhand 20. The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih, P.O.& P.S. Giridih, District Giridih, State Jharkhand. 21. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro, State Jharkhand 22. The District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro, P.O.& P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro, State Jharkhand. 23. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh, State Jharkhand 24. The District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh, P.O.& P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh, State Jharkhand. 25. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Koderma, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, District Koderma, State Jharkhand 26. The District Superintendent of Education, Koderma, P.O.& P.S. Koderma, District Koderma, State Jharkhand. 27. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, State Jharkhand 28. The District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh, P.O.& P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, State Jharkhand …. Appellants/ Respondents Versus 1. Sharwan Kumar Mahato, aged about 35 years, Son of Madhusudan Mahato, Resident of Bara Nawatnad, P.O. Govindpur, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State 5 Jharkhand. 2. Vikash Chandra Mandal, aged about 43 years, son of Dharani Dhar Mandal, Resident of Nero, P.O. Bagsuma, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 3. Sanjeet Kumar Gorain, aged about 32 years, son of Biswanath District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand, Gorain, Resident of Pratapdih, P.O. Poddardih, P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 4. Hafizuddin Ansari, aged about 43 years, son of Late Jahir Ansari, resident of Daldali, P.O. Daldali, P.S. Nirsa Via Mugma, District Dhanbad State Jharkhand. 5. Md. Naushab Ahamad, aged about 38 years, son of Md. Salim, resident of Gaidehra, P.O. Govindpur, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 6. Ayen Bhandari, aged about 38 years, son Durga Charan Bhandari, Resident of Dhowatand, P.O. Dhorioinohuwani, P.S Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 7. Ajij Ansari, aged about 39 years, son of Late Hafijuddin Ansari, resident of Barwa East, P.O.Barwa East, P.S.Govindpur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 8. Kanchan Mandal, aged about 40 years, son of Late Sri Prabodh Chandra Mandal, resident of Kapasara, P.O. Govindpur, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 9. Ramesh Bahandari, aged about 38 years, son of Anil Bhandari, resident of Mahubani, P.O.Ambona, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 10. Mihir Kumar Das, aged about 54 years, son of Late Santosh Kumar Das, Resident of Kumhardih, P.O. Govindpur, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 11. Bijay Kumar Mahato, aged about 36 years, son of Hare Lal Mahato, Resident of Bara Nawa Tand, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 6 12. Sadhan Chandra Mandal, aged about at 87 years, son of Anadi Charan Mandal, resident of Titichapuri, P.O.Dhariomahubani, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 13. Ranjeet Kumar Gope, aged about 43 years, son of Shanti Ram Gope, resident of Murgabani, P.O. Jangalpur, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkahnd. 14. Sapan Kumar Mandal, aged about 41 years, son of Desh Nath Mandal, resident of Sugna, P.O. Sarkardih, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 15. Tapas Kumar Mandal, aged about 36 years, son of Kansari Charan Mandal, Resident of Bara Baghmara, P.O.Bagsuma, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 16. Rajkishor Prasad Mahato, aged about 53 years, son of Late Ram Prasad Mahato, resident of Bara Baghmara, P.O. Bagsuma, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 17. Md. Shahid Jamal, aged about 36 years, son of Late Abdul Mannan, resident of Nishat Nagar, P.O.Wasseypur, P.S. Bankmore, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 18. Samir Kumar Dan, aged about 57 years, son of Late Pashupati Dan, resident of Maira Nawatand, P.O. Maira Nawatand, P.S. Purvi Tundi, District Dhanabd, State Jharkahnd. 19. Rajeev Kumar Das, aged about 36 years, son of Himanshu Sekhar Das, resident of Govindpur, P.O. Govindpur, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State Jhakrhand. 20. Somit Kumar Dutta, aged about 37 years, son of Narugopal Dutta, resident of Govindpur (Ramnagar), P.O. Govindpur, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 7 21. Bhuban Rajak, aged about 46 years, son of Late Ganpat Rajak, resident of Rampur, P.O. Maharajgan, P.S. Purvi Tand, District Dhanbad, State Jharkahnd. 22. Shuku Gope, aged 37 years, son of Gora Chanda Gope, resident of Kaladabar, P.O. Bardohi, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 23. Tahir Ahmad, aged about 38 years, son of Md. Kalimuddin Ansari, resident of Kaladabar, P.O.Barwa East, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 24. Md. Basher Ansari, aged about 37 years, son of Md. Shahid Ansari, resident of Parasi, P.O. Barwa East, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 25. Ram Dayal Mahato, aged about 43 years son of Late Badri Mahato resident of Karmagora, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 26. Arindam Mondal, aged about 48 years, son of Amiya Kumar Mondal, resident of Keliasole, P.O. Keliasole, P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 27. Sujit Kumar Thakur, aged about 39 years, son of Maheshwar Thakur, resident of B.E. & F.W. Sindri Colony, Nirsa, P.O. Nirsa, P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 28. Saroj Kumar Mondal, aged about 38 years, son of Swapan Kumar Mondal, resident of Dhobari, P.O.Keliasole, P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 29. Manoj Kumar Mahato, aged about 42 years, son of Puran Chand Mahato, resident of Dam Kara Barwa, P.O.Nagnagar, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 30. Sachindra Nath Mandal, aged about 39 years, son of Kishto Prasad Mandal, residen tof Barwadda, P.O.Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 8 31. Sachida Nand Das, aged about 45 years, son of Kishun Lal Rohi Das, resident of Baman Bad, P.O. Latani, P.S. Purvi Tundi, District DFhanbad, State Jharkhand. 32. Pradeep Kumar Mandal, aged about 40 years, son of Biren Chandra Mandal, resident of Dhorio Mahubani, P.O. Mahubani, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanband, State Jharkhand. 33. Krishna Kumar Mandal, aged about 48 years, son of Late Nagendra Nath Mandal, resident of Hirapur, P.O. Maharajganj, P.S.Tundi, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 34. Hira Lal Mahato, aged about 41 yars, son of Panchanan Mahato, resident of Barmasia, P.O. Birajpur, P.S. Barwadda, District Chanbad, State Jharkhand. 35. Gopal Chandra Barat, aged about 46 years, son of Late Budhan Chandra Barat, resident of Barajamua, P.O.Kalyanpur, P.S.Barwadda, District Dhanbad, State Jharkahnd. 36. Bhekh Lal Mahato, aged about 40 years, son of Late Durga Prasad Mahato, resident of Udaypur, P.O.Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 37. Dashrath Mahto, aged about 49 years, son of Khakhandu Mahato, resident of Udaypur, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 38. Bishwanath Mahato, aged about 37 years, son of Ghanshayam Mahato, resident of Kubritand, P.O.Nagarkiyari, P.S. Govindpur, Disrtrict Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 39. Abodh Kumar Mandal, aged about 40 years, son of Late Nivaran Chandra Mandal, resident of Nagarkiyari, P.O. Nagarkiyari, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 40. Jay Prakash Saw, aged about 45 ytears, son of 9 Tammi Prassad Mahato, residen tof Kalyanpur, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 41. Md. Rafique Ansari, aged about 51 years, son of Ramjan Mia, resident of Baranawatand P.O. Govindpur, P.S. Govindpur, Districtr Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 42. Md. Mukhtar Ansari, aged about 39 years, son of Abdul Mannan Resident of Dumdumi, P.O. Barwa East, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 43. Raise Azam, aged about 47 years, son of Md. Rayam Husain, resideent of Kalyanpur, P.O.Kalyanpur, P.S. Rajganj, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 44. Dalu Ram Saw, aged about 34 years, son of Late Anand Mahato, resident of Karmagora, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 45. Ramtosh Kumar, aged about 35 years, son of Churamn Mahato, resident of Hariyadih, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 46. Md. Mukhtar Hussain, aged about 47 years, son of Md. Paniruddin Ansari, resident of Kalyanpur, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 47. Naresh Rawani, aged about 43 years, son of Late Ravi Rawani, Resident of Jainagar, P.O. Murradih, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 48. Md. Imtiyaz Ansari, aged about 49 years, son of Md. Habibuddin Ansari, resident of Simlatand, P.O. Murradih, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 49. Saroj Kumar Mahto, aged about 55 years, son of Milu Mahto, resident of Udaypur, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 50. Jiten Chandra Gorai, aged about 36 years, son of Sudhir Chandra Gorai, resident of Deoli, P.O. Jangalpur, 10 P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 51. Manoj Gope, aged about 37 years, aged about Late Dukhu Gope, resident of Deoli, P.O. Jangalpur, P.S. Govindpur, Distirct Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 52. Md. Shahabuddin Ansari, aged about 49 years, son of Md. Khalil Ansari, resident of Mahubani, P.O. Dhorio Mahubani, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 53. Md. Jarjis Ansari, aged about 52 years, son of Md. Yunus Ansari, resident of Bhitia, P.O. Bhitia, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 54. Subhash Kumar Chatterjee, aged about 44 years, son of Bijay Chatterjee, resident of Rangdih, P.O.Bhitia, P.S Govindpur, Distirct Dhabbad, State Jharkahnd. 55. Anwar Alam, aged about 43 years, son of Ismail Ansari, resident of Gorangdih, P.O.& P_.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 56. Sarju Prasad Dutta, aged about 34 years, son of Late Prabhat Kumar Dutta, resident of Govindpur, P.O.&P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 57. Samiruddin Ansari, aged about 48 years, son of Md. Noshad Ansari, resident of Dumdumi, P.O. Barwa East, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 58. Golak Bauri, aged about 45 years, son of Shashi Bauri, resident of Beltand, P.O. Kharni, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 59. Shankar Rajwar, aged about 41 years, son of Basudeo Rajwar, resident of Pawapur, P.O. Kharni, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 60. Bijay Nandan Pandey, aged about 51 years, son fo Chandradeo Pandey, resident of Khanudih, P.O.Khanudih, P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 61. Rajendra Yadav, aged about 46 years, son of Ramkisun Yadav, resident of Baghmara, P.O. Nawagarh, 11 P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 62. Manoj Kumar Gope, aged about 41 ytears, son of Jaglal Gope, resident of Nadkhurakee, P.O. Nadkhurakee, P.S.Baghmara, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 63. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, aged about 40 years, son
Legal Reasoning
of Sri Shyamesh Ch. Pandey, resident of Jhargrahi, P.O.Jhargrahi, P.S. Barora, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 64. Avijit Dubey, aged about 51 years, son of Binjay Kumar Dube, resident of Muraidih Colony, P.O. Pochaki, P.S. Barira, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 65. Bhubneshwar Prasad, aged about 48 years, son of Bahadur Prasad, resident of Baghmara Basti, P.O.Baghmara Bazaar, P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 66. Bidesh Kumar Sahani, aged about 39 years, son of Nirmal Sahani, residen tof Bhagabandh, P.O. Barabindia, P.S. Nirsha, District Dhanabd, Stae Jharkhand. 67. Man Puran Pandey, aged about 44 years, son of Fanindar Nath Pandey, resident of Barapandeydih, Khanudih, P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 68. Dhirendra Chandra Napit, aged about 44 years, son of Thakur Napit, resident of Dagdho, P.O. Khanudih, P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 69. Satyendra Vishwakarma, aged about 48 years, son of Tribhuwan Vishwakarma, resident of Sinidih, P.O. Tundoo, P.S. Madhuban District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 70. Manpuran Mahato, aged about 43 years, son of Late Manohar Mahato, resident of Sridharpur, P.O.Kankomath, P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 71. Amit Kumar, aged about 35 years, son of Vir 12 Chandra Patel, resident of Muraidih Colony, P.O. Pochari (Nawagarh), P.S. Barora, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 72. Ayan Kumar Rawani, aged about 48 years, son of Dilip Rawani, resident of Dharmabandh Basti, P.O. Malkera, P.S. Madhuban District Dhanbad, Stae Jharkhand. 73. Arun Kumar Rawani, aged about 33 years son of Ramnath Rawani, resident of Dharmabandh Basti, P.O. Malkera, P.S. Madhuban, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 74. Ramwatar Rawani, aged about 46 years, son of Late Bishwanath Rawani, resident of Dharmabandh, P.O.Malkera, P.S. Madhuban, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 75. Bindeshwar Prasad Das, aged about 46 years, son of Jawahir Das, resident of Nichitpur, P.O.Khario, P.S. Barora, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 76. Raj Kishore Mandal, aged about 35 years, son of Jhari Ram Mandal, resident of Tilaiya, P.O. Khanudih, P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 77. Manoj Kumar Mahto, aged about 38 years, son of Nunulal Mahto, resident of Tilaiya, P.O. Khanudih, P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 78. Shankar Mistri, aged about 42 years, son of Nokal Mistri, resident of Aamdih, P.O. Khario, P.S. Barora, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 79. Abdul Sattar Ansari, aged about 47 years, son of Abdul Jabbar Ansari, resident of Pochari, P.O. Pochari, P.S. Barora, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 80. Jai Lal Mahto, aged about 39 years, son of Sona Ram Mahto, resident of Muraidih, P.O. Pochari, P.S. Barora, District Dhanbad, State Jharkahnd. 81. Ram Prasad Mahato, aged about 49 years, son of 13 Bhola Mahato, resident of Jhagrahi, P.O. Jhagrahi, P.S. Barora, District Dhabad, State Jharkhand. 82. Sajid Shekh, aged about 34 years, son of Noor Mohamad Shekh, resident of Kandra, P.O. Ramnagargarh, P.S. Mahuda, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 83. Lalit Kumar Mahato, aged about 38 years, son of Dhananjay Mahato, resident of Pathargariya, Dhowatand, P.O. Bhatdih, P.S. Mahuda, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 84. Yogesh Dutta, aged about 34 years, son 0f Monilal Dutta, resident of Egarkund South Kusumkanali, P.O. Kumardhubi, P.S. Chirkunda, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 85. Patit Paban Roychaudhary, aged about 42 years, son of Gopal Chandra, Roychaudhary, resident of Tiltoria, P.O. Madanpur, P.S. Nirsha, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 86. Md. Sikandar Husein Shah, aged about 34 years, son of Late Eashmail Sai, resident of Niche Deoghara, P.O. Mahuda, P.S. Madhuban, District Dhanabd, State Jharkahnd. 87. Budhan Mahto, aged about 41 years, son of Mangtu Mahto, resident of Narangi, P.O. Naitand, P.S. Dumri, District Giridih, State Jharkhand. 88. Sukhdeo Mahto, aged about 54 years, son of Sri Utim Mahto, resident of Naitand, via Suria, P.O. Naitand, P.S. Dumri, District Giridih, State Jharkhand. 89. Rajesh Kumar, aged about 33 years, son of Ganesh Prasad Kushwaha, resident of Bhandaro, P.O. Naitand, via Suria,P.S. Dumri, District Giridih, State Jharkhand. 90. Vikash Kumar Verma, aged about 36 years, son of Sri Shanichar Mahto, resident of Naitand, P.O. Naitand, P.S. Dumri, District Giridih, State Jharkhand. 91. Chetlal Mahto, aged about 52 years, son of Late 14 Sukar Mahto, resident of Angarpathra Pathalkothi, P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad, State Jharkahnd. 92. Girdhari Prasad Kushwaha, aged about 44 years, son of Hulash Mahto, resident of Puranadih, P.O. Naitand, P.S. Dumri, District Giridih, State Jharkhand. 93. Shekh Abdul Kallu, aged about 35 years, son of Shekh Noor Alam, resident of Kharkhari, P.O. Kharkhari, P.S. Madhuban, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 94. Balram Mahato, aged about 44 years, son of Sitaram Mahato, resident of Pradhankhanta, P.O. Pradhankhanta, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 95. Siddheshwar Singh, agerd about 42 years, son of Late Dashrath Singh, resident of Amtal, P.Q. Amtal, Baliapur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 96. Praesh Chandra Kumbhakar, aged about 47 years, son of Hiralal Kumhakar, resident of Kerabir, P.O.Baliapur, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 97. Shankar Chandra Mahto, aged about 45 years, son of Late Harkhu Mahto, resident of Jagdish, P.O. Pradhankhanta, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkahnd. 98. Om Prakash Das, aged about 43 years, son of Late Jaleshwar Das, resident of Amjhar, P.O.& P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 99. Nepal Chandra Mahto, aged about 39 years, son of Srishti Dhar Mahto, resident of Dhokhra, P.O. Damoderpur, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 100. Manoj Kumar Rawani, aged about 37 years, son of Vishwanath Rawani, resident of Karmatand, P.O. Karmatand, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 15 101. Suresh Rawani, aged about 38 years, son of Mahabir Rawani, resident of Karmatand, P.O. Karmatand, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 102. Sadhan Kumar, Gorain, aged about 40 years, son of Kali Pada Gorain, resident of Karmatand, P.O. Karmatand, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 103. Kala Chand Rawani, aged about 41 years, son of Sohan Rawani, resident of Karmatand, P.O. Krymatand, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State JHarkhand. 104. Mahendra Kumar Mahto, aged about 35 years, son of Rameshwar Mahato, resident of Kusumatand, P.O. Pargha, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanabd, state Jharkhand. 105. Binod Kumar Rewani, aged about 56 years, son of Hari Pad Rawani, resident of village Pargha Suphaldih, P.O. Pargha, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 106. Bijay Kumar Mahato, aged about 43 years, son of Sachidanand Mahato, residenht of Bara Baghmara, P.O. Bagsuma, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkahnd. 107. Bachan Rawani, aged about 34 years, son of Navin Rawani resident of Pargha Suphald, P.O. Pargha, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 108. Subal Chandra Mahato, aged about 45 years, son of Juran Mahato, resident of Kusmatand, P.O. Pargha, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 109. Jayprakash Mahasto, aged about 33 years, son of Gokhul Mahato, resident of Nipania (Kuludih), P.O. Pargha, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jhakrhand. 110. Raj Kishor Mahato, aged about 47 years, son of Jogeshwar Mahato, resident of Laldih, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 16 111. Santosh Bauri, aged about 48 years, son of Lakhi Ram Bauri, resident of Moko, P.O. Moko, P.S./ Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 112. Rajkesh Kumar Mahato, aged about 34 years, son of Gopal Mahato, resident of Dhokhra, P.O. Damodarpur, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 113. Ganesh Chandra Mahato, aged about 40 years, son of Jaleshwar Mahato, resident of Pradhankahanta, P.O.Pradhankahnata, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 114. Tulsi Das Mahato, aged about 41 years, son of Jaleshwar Mahato, resident of Pradhankahanta, P.O. Pradhankahanta, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 115. Haru Rawani, aged about 46 years, son of Shyam Rawani, resident of Kusmatand, P.O. Pargha, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 116. Dilip Kumar Mandal, aged about 45 years, son of Kamlakar Mandal, resident of Pargha Koradih, P.O. Pargha, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jhakhand. 117. Ranjit Kumar Mahato, aged about 37 years, son of Dashrath Mahato, resident of Chandkuiya, P.O. Amtal via Jharia, P.S. Tisra, District Dhanbad, State Jharkahnd. 118. Surendra Nath Mahato, aged about 40 years, son of Fitu Mahato, resident of Pradhankahanta, P.O. Pradhankahanta, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 119. Inderajeet Mahato, aged about 34 years, son of Kala Chand Mahato, resident of Chand Kuiya, P.O. Amtal, P.S. Tisra, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 120. Tapan Kumar Mahato, aged about 33 years, son of Kisto Pado Mahato, resident of Kalipur, P.O. Gharbar, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 121. Bhagirath Mahato, aged about 32 years, son of 17 Kinu Mahato, resident of Banderchua, P.O. Pargha, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 122. Mathur Rabi Das, aged about 38 years, son of Arjun Rabi Das, resident of Baliapur, P.O.&P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 123. Anuj Kumar Mahato, aged about 34 years, son of Lakhi Ram Mahato, resident of Sapta, P.O. Pradhankahnata, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 124. Kailash Gorai, aged about 42 years, son of Nand Lal Gorai, resident of Parasbania, P.O. Khas Jienagora, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 125. Amal Paramanik, aged about 46 years, son of Ratan Pramanik, resident of Amjhar, P.O.&P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 126. Dhirendra Paramanik, aged about 43 years, son of Budhu Pramanik, resident of Palani, P.O. Palani, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 127. Arun Kumar Gope, aged about 40 years, son of Santosh Kumar Gope, resident of Fakiradih, P.O. Palani, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 128. Beni Madhab Paul, aged about 40 yeaars, son of Late Atul Chandra Paul, resident of Mandhartand, P.O.&P.S. Sindri, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand. 129. Digambar Mahato, aged about 49 years, son of Mutuk Lal Mahato, resident of Baliapur, P.O. P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 130. Naresh Kumar Mahato, aged about 45 years, son of Gopal Chandra Mahato, resident of Bormuri, P.O. & P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 131. Kailash Pati Mahato, aged about 57 years, son of Late Jagannath Mahato, resident of Dhangi, P.O. Pradhankahanta, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.. 18 132. Sudip Kumar Mandal, aged about 40 years, son of Lambodar Mandal, resident of Dhangi, P.O. Pradhankahanta, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand., 133. Hira Lal Mahato, aged about 39 years, son of Kartik Mahato, resident of Jagdish, P.O. Pradhankahanta, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 134. Sridhar Mahato, aged about 52 years, son of Binod Mahato, resident of Gortopa, P.O. Gortopa, P.S Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 135. Lakhan Kumar Pandey, aged about 53 years, son of Dhirendra Nath Pandey, resident of Khanudih, P.O.Khanudih, P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. .…. Respondents/writ petitioners With L.P.A. No. 593 of 2022 ------ 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, P.O.& P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro. 3. The District Education Officer, Bokaro, P.O.& Bokaro, District Bokaro. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro, P.O.& P.S. Bokaro, Distirct Bokaro. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro, P.O.&P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro. -------- Appellants/Respondents Versus Neel Kamal Verma son of Nehaliram Mahto, resident of Viullage Baraikala, P.O. Chandipur, P.S. Kasamar, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. ------ Writ Petitioner/ Respondent With L.P.A. No. 610 of 2022 ------ 19 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Rajbhasa and Administrative Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand. 2. The Director, Primary Education, School of Education and Literacy Development Departmnet, Government of Jharkhand, MDI Building, P.O.&P.S.Dhurwa, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand. 3. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Establishment Committee, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & District Deoghar. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. and District Deoghar. ------------ Appellants/Respondents Versus 1. Umesh Choudhary, aged about 42 years, son of Sri Jatan Choudhary, resident of Gram and Post Master Mohalla Jori, P.S. Master Mohalla, Jori, P.S. Basist Nagar, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. -------- Respondent/Writ Petitioner With L.P.A. No. 611 of 2022 ------ 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand. 2. The Director, Directorate of Primary Education, Human Resource Development, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand. 3. The Deputy Commssioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Pakur, P.O., P.S. and District Pakur, State Jharkhand. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur, P.O., 20 P.S. and District Pakur, State Jharkhand. 5. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Giridih, P.O., P.S. and District Giridih, State Jharkhand. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih, P.O., P.S. and District Giridih. 7. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. and District Deoghar, State Jharkhand. 8. The District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. and District Deoghar. ------------- Appellants/Respondents Versus 1. Kumar Amit, aged about 40 years, son of Sri Sudhir Kumar Jha, resident of Radhika Lodge, Nand Sulochana Sadan, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar, State Jharkahnd. 2. Dilip Kumar Raut, aged about 39 years son of Sri Heeralal Raut, resident of Village Behrakanari, P.O. & P.S. Sarwan, District Deoghar, State Jharkhand. 3. Gautam Raj, aged about 36 years, son of Late Nawal Kishor Pandit, resident of Rani Kothi, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar, State Jharkahnd. ------------- Respondents/Writ Petitioners L.P.A. No. 613 of 2022 With ------ 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand. 2. The Director of Primary Education, Human Resource Development, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand. 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Ranchi, 21 P.O.&P.S. Ranchi, District Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh, P.O, P.S. & District Hazaribagh 5. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Bokaro, P.O.&P.S. & District Bokaro. 6. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Giridih, P.O.&P.S & District Giridih 7. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Garwah, P.O.&P.S. & District Garwah 8. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad, P.O.&P.S. & District Dhanbad 9. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Chatra, P.O.&P.S. & District Chatra. 10. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Godda, P.O.&P.S. & District Godda. 11. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj, P.O.&P.S. & District Sahebganj 12. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Pakur, P.O.&P.S. & District Pakur. 13. The Deputy Superintendent Jamtara, P.O.&P.S. & District Jamtara. 14. The Deputy Superintendent Deoghar, P.O.& P.S. & District Deoghar. 15. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, of Education, of Education, Koderma, P.O.& P.S. & District Koderma 16. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Dumka, P.O.&P.S. & District Dumka 17. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh, P.O.& P.S. & District Ramgarh. 18. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Gumla, P.O.& P.S. & District Gumla. 19. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Simdega, P.O. & P.S. & District Simdega. 20. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, 22 Lohardaga, P.O.& P.S. & District Lohardaga. 21. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Latehar, P.O.&P.S. & District Latehar. 22. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Palamau, P.O.& P.S. & District Palamau. 23. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh, P.O.& P.S. & District Hazaribagh. 24. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Bokaro, P.O.&P.S. & District Bokaro. ------------- Respondents/ Appellants 1. Ram Mohan Prasad Sah, aged about 44 years, son of Versus Jagnarayan Prasad Sah, resident of Delipathar, P.O. Bhalsumar, P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh. 2. Kundan Kumar, aged about 42 years, S/o Late Ayodhya Prasad Sah, R/o Ratanpur, P.O.Rajbandh, P.S. Dumka, Dist. Dumka. 3. Gopal Krishan, aged about 44 years S/o Late Muralidhar, R/o Village Nonihat, P.O.&P.S. Nonihat, District Dumka 4. Chandra Prakash Das, aged about 48 years S/o Harihar Das R/o Gandhinagar, P.O., P.S. and District Dumka. 5. Ajayendra Kumar Singh, aged about 56 years S/o Kamta Prasad Singh, R/o P.O. Lakrapahari, P.S. Jama, Dist. Dumka. 6. Madhu Mangal Nag, aged about 45 years, S/o Late Tara Pad Nag, resident of Village Palasi, P.O. Bara Palasi, P.S. Jama, District Dumka. 7. Kunal Upadhyay, aged about 42 years S/o Dhananjayu Upadhyay, resident of New Babu Para, Dumka, P.O., P.S. and District Dumka. 8. Rupesh Kumar, aged about 41 years S/o Ram Lakhan Vishwakarma, resident of village Nagri Basti, P.O. Sijua, P.S. Tetulmari, District Dhanbad. 23 9. Vikash Kmar, aged about 39 years S/o Surendra Rawani, Resident of Basseriya Rawani Basti, Ward No. 13, P.O. Kusumda, P.S. Kenduadih, Dist. Dhanbad. 10. Devendra Kumar, aged about 43 years S/o Sahebram Rawani, Resident of Bhuli Basti, P.O. Bhjulinagar, P.S. Bank More, Dist. Dhanbad. 11. Chandan Kumar, aged about 36 years S/o Upendra Peasad Singh, Resident of Sangram Lorhia, P.O.& P.S. Sangram Lorhia, Dist. Deoghar. 12. Satish Kumar Gupta, aged about 51 years S/o Late Kasi Nath Shaw, Resident of Lata Bhawan, Near H.E.School, Bhisti Para, Hirapur, P.O., P.S. & Distt. Dhanbad. 13. Niranjan Prasad Singh, aged about 51 years S/o Ishwarmani Singh, resident of Chhatabad, P.O.Katnia Ghadih, P.S.Tundi, Dist. Dhanbad. 14. Manoj Kumar Roy, aged about 44 years S/o Late Dharam Chandra Roy, resident of Kenduadih Rajput Basti, P.O. Kusunda, P.S. Kenduadih, Dist. Dhanbad. 15. Laxman Mahto, aged about 45 years S/o Anup Mahto, resident Kacchi Balihari, P.O. Kusunda, P.S. Putki, Dist. Dhanbad. 16. Raju Kumar, aged about 49 years S/o Teklal Sharma, Resident of Baludih, B.M./501 P.O. Moonidih, P.S. Putki, Dist. Dhanbad. 17. Yogendra Prasad Bhagat, aged about 53 years S/o Jagadish Prasasd Bhagat, resident of Dhoba, P.O.& P.S. Ramgarh, Dist. Dumka. 18. Upendra Thakru, aged about 35 years S/o Kamlanath Thakur, Resident of Sharma Tola, P.O. Balsagra, P.S. Mundu, District Hazaribagh. 19. Vijay Kumar Rana, aged about 36 years S/o Bhuneshwar Rana, resident of Medkuri Khurd, P.O. Kariyatpur, P.S. Daru, Dist. Hazaribagh 24 20. Md. Safiq Ansari, aged about 47 years S/o Late Samsul Haque, resident of Barki Pona, P.O.&P.S. Barki Pona, Dist. Ramgarh. 21. Kunj Bihari, aged about 42 years S/o Chaman Saw, resident of Kadma, P.O.&P.S. Kadma, Distt. Hazaribagh. 22. Anil Kumar Lohra, aged about 44 years, son of Shiv Ganga Ram Lohra, Resident of Bakudi, P.O.&P.S. Bakudi, DIst. Sahebganj. 23. Md. Shahjahan, aged about 44 years, son of Abdul Gafur, Resident okf Village Khaspura, P.O. Kathalbari, P.S. Radha Nagar, Dist. Sahebganj. 24. Purendra Kumar, aged about 38 years, son of Basudeo Ram, resident of Nagwa, P.O. Bariyath, P.S. Sadar, Dist. Hazaribagh. 25. PRadip Prasad Kuswaha, aged about 38 years, son of Ishwar Prasad Kuswaha, resident of Potma, P.O. Sabalpur, P.S. Suriya, Dist. Giridih. 26. Reyaz Ansari, aged about 53 years, son of Rabul Ansari, resident of Village Asurbandh, P.O. Pordag, P.S. Nimayaghat, Dist. Giridih. 27. Ranjeet Rana, aged about 45 years, son of Bhikhi Rana, resident of Babhandih, P.O. Chopnadih, P.S. Markacho, Dist. Koderma. 28. Birendra Kumar Pandey, aged about 41 years, son of Lal Dhari Pandey, resident of Sinduwari, P.O. Jori P.S. Chatra, Distt. Chatra. 29. Rajesh Kumar Rana, aged about 34 years, son of Rameshwar Rana, Resident of Rupaidih, P.O. Makatpur, P.S. Jainagar, Dist. Koderma. 30. Murli Ram, aged about 51 years, son of Lekho Das, Resident of Baddiha, P.O. Lokai, P.S. Koderma, Dist. Koderma. 31. Chhotu Paswan, aged about 47 years, son of 25 Lakhan Paswan, resident of Giridih Road, Mahavir Mohalla, P.O., P.S. & Distt. Koderma. 32. Umesh Paswan, aged about 45 years, son of Babulal Paswan, resident of Barkan Gango, P.O. Barkan Gango, P.S. Barkatha, Dist. Hazaribagh 33. Birendra Rajak, aged about 39 years, son of Prayag Rajak, resident of Turkabad, P.O. Chuglamo, P.S. Barkhatta, Dist. Hazaribagh. 34. Shashi Bhushan Singh, aged about 35 years, son of Rama Dahin Singh, resident of Jori, P.O.&P.S. Jori, Dist. Chatra. 35. Birendra Prasad, aged about 44 years, son of Kunjo Mahto, resident of Village Bedam, P.O. Bedam, P.S.Tatijharia, Dist. Hazaribagh. 36. Sudhir Kumar Mandal, aged about 40 years, son of Tulsi Prasad, resident of Village Kolhu, P.O. Bedam, P.S. Tatijharia, Dist. Hazaribagh. 37. Butan Kumar, aged about 47 years, son of Konjo Mahto, resident of village Duymar, P.O. Bedam, P.S. Tatijharia, Dist. Hazaribagh. 38. Mousam Kumar Singh, aged about 38 years, son of Sudhir Kumar Singh, resident of Madhura, P.O. Madhura, P.S. Balbadda, Dist. Godda. 39. Gautam Kumar, aged about 39 years, son of Anugrah Narayan Singh, resident of P.O. & P.S. Mahagama, Dist. Godda. 40. Yogendra Kumar Ray, aged about 42 years, son of Ashok Kumar Ray, resident of Hussainabad, P.O. Hussainabad, P.S. Devipur, Dist. Deoghar. 41. Pintu Ravidas, aged about 36 years, son of Jitan Ram, Resident of Village Jharpo, P.O. Jharpo, P.S. Ichak, Dist. Hazaribagh. 42. Chandan Thakur, aged about 36 years, son of Mulchand Thakur, resident of Dumar, P.O. Bedam, P.S. 26 Tatijharia, Dist. Hazaribagh. 43. Tulsi Thakur, aged about 47 years, son of Late Ganesh Thakur, resident of Dumar, P.O. Bedam, P.S. Tatijharia, Dist. Hazaribagh. 44. Sanjay Kumar Bhagat, aged about 40 years, son of Bhagoswar Prasad Bhagat, resident of Amrapara, P.O.&P.S./ Amrapara, Dist. Pakur. 45. Rabindra Nath Bhagat, aged about 53 years, son of Late Ramjanam Bhagat, resident of Dumarchir, P.O. Dumarchir, P.S. Amrapara, Dist. Pakur. 46. Satyendra Prasad, aged about 43 years, son of Shiv Prasad Bhagat, resident of Pakuria, P.O.&P.SD. Pakuria, Dist. Pakur. 47. Binod Kumar Sah, aged about 50 years, son of Gurudayal Prasad, resident of Devinagar, P.O. Devinagar, P.S. Maheshpur, Dist. Pakur. 48. Devkant Thakur, aged about 50 years, son of Sadanand Thakur, resident of Teliapokhar, P.O. Rolagram, P.S. Maheshpur, Dist. Pakur. 49. Santosh Kumar, aged about 39 years, son of Amrit Prajapati, resident of Village Dumar, P.O. Bedam, PO.S. Tatijharia, Dist. Hazaribagh. ------------- Respondents/Writ Petitioners With L.P.A. No. 626 of 2022 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, ------ Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, School Education and Literacy Development Department, Government of Jharkahnd, Project Building, P.O.&P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand. 3. The Director, Primary Education, School of Education and Literacy Development Department, Government of 27 Jharkhand, MDI Building, P.O.&P.S.Dhurwa, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra, Block Campus, P.O., P.S. and District Chatra. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. and District Hazaribagh. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh, Office "B" Block, New Samaharnalaya Bhawan at Chhatarmandu, P.O., P.S. and District Ramgarh. 7. The Superintendent District of Education, Samaharnalaya Bhawan, Koderma, P.O., P.S. and District Koderma. 8. The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih, Old Jail Campus, Near Jhanda Maidan, P.O., P.S. and District Giridih. 9. The District Superintendent of Education, Campus Middle School, S.B.S., Chas, Bye Pass Road, P.O., P.S. and District Bokaro. 10. The District Superintendent of Education, Misrit Bhawan (Basement), Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. and District Dhanbad. 11. The District Superintendent of Education, Dumka, Zila Parishad Bhawan, P.O., P.S. and District Dumka. 12. The District Superintendent of Education, Middle School, Old Meena Bazar Campus, P.O., P.S. and District Deoghar 13. The District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara, Combined Building, Block-C, Sri Rampur, P.O., P.S. and District Jamtara. 14. The District Superintendent of Education, First Floor of Information & Public Affair Building, in front of Mela Maidan, P.O., P.S. and District Godda. 15. The District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj, Middle School (Police Line Campus), P.O., P.S. 28 Sahibganj and District Sahibganj. 16. The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur, Court Campus,, P.O., P.S. and District Pakur. ------------ Appellants Versus 1. Jitendra Kumar Gupta aged about 35 years, son of Sri Kali Sao, resident of Village & P.O. Mayapur, P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 2. Brahamdeo Yadav aged about 46 years son of Sri Ramtilak Yadav, resident of village Kundri, P.O. Mandhnaniya, P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra. 3. Binita Kumari aged about 37 years D/o Sri Kashi Prasad Mehta, resident of Village Dhebadauri, P.O. Mandhaniyan, P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 4. Peamod Kumar Rana aged about 48 years son of Laste Janki Rana, resident of village Dhebadauri, P.O. Mandhaniyan, P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra State Jharkhand. 5. Kailash Saw aged about 41 years son of Sri Ramchandra Saw resident of village & P.O. Mayapur, P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 6. Vikash Kumar Singh aged about 43 years S/o: Sri Digambar Singh, resident of village Ambatari, P.O. Pandani, P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 7. Sanjay Kumar Rana aged about 47 years S/o Sri Mahan Rana, resident of village & P.O. Manjhgawan, P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra. 8. Bishun Kumar Gupta aged about 42 years S/o Bhimal Sao, resident of village Fulang, P.O. Pathra, P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra. 9. Jageshwar Prasad Sahu aged about 53 years S/o of Late Thakuri Sahu, resident of village Jhardag, P.O. Pathra, 29 P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 10. Amrit Kumar, aged about 44 years S/o Late Mahabir Ram, Resident of village Sewal, P.O. Mandhaniyan, P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra, Jharjkhand. 11. Aditya Dangi aged about 41 years S/o Sri Cheto Mahto, resident of village Bela, P.O. Mandhaniyan, P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra. 12. Rajdeo Kumar Ram, aged about 33 years, S/o Sri Prasadi Bhuiyan, resident village Bela, P.O. Mandhaniyan, P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 13. Suryadeo Ram Rawani aged about 38 years S/o Shri Bishun Ram, resident of village & P.O. Karni, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 14. Santosh Kumar, aged about 51 years S/o Bhuneshwar Lal, Resident of village Erki, P.O. & P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 15. Ashok Sen Suman aged about 42 years son of Sri Suresh Prasad Sahu, Resident of village Shaharjam, P.O. Karni, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 16. Pankaj Kumar Rajak, aged about 42 years, son of Sri Horil Ram, resident of village Banthu, P.O. Parsouni, P.S. Itkhorj, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 17. Mahendra Prasad Yadav, aged about 45 years, son of Sri Shivnath Yadav, resident of village Belhari, P.O. Dhouthwa, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 18. Dilip Kumar Singh, aged about 46 years son of Sri Roshan Singh, resident of village Najirganj, P.O. Badgawan, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 19. Arvind Kumar Yadav, aged about 34 years, son of 30 Sri Badri Gope, resident of village Tonatand, P.O. and P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 20. Sujit Kumar Sinha, aged about 38 years, son of Sri Mahendra Kishor Prasad, resident of village Dhuna, P.O. and P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 21. Ashok Kumar Dangi, aged about 50 years, son of Late Rewa Dangi, resident of village Nagwan, P.O. and P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State JHarkhand. 22. Bhuneshwar Yadav, aged about 34 years, son of Sri Chandra Yadav, resident of Village Murumdag, P.O. Dhouthwa, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 23. Dashrath Saw, aged about 42 years, son of Sri Tilak Saw, resident of village Pankri Barwadih, P.O. and P.S. Barkagaon District Hazaribagh, State Jharkhand. 24. Tahal Yadav, aged about 50 years, son of Heman Yadav, resident of village Rajbar, P.O. Dhouthwa and P.S. Itkhori, District Chatrra, State Jharkhand. 25. Vivekanad Sinha, aged about 39 years, son of Sri Sadanand Prasdad, resident of village Surjugadi, P.O. Gadinawadih, P.S. Jamua, District Giridih, State Jharkhand. 26. Ramji Gope, aged about 44 years son of Sri Sukar Gope, resident of village Ashriya, P.O. Karni, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 27. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, aged about 47 years, son of Sri Pokhan Saw, resident of village Serad, P.O. Karni, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 28. Tapeshwar Yadav, aged about 33 years, son of Sri Ganesh Mahto, resident of village Lakshanpur, P.O. Unta, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 29. Phagu Saw, aged about 48 years, son of Late Ganesh Saw, resident of village Parsouni, P.O. Parsouni, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 31 30. Ram Kumar Yadav, aged about 37 years, son of Sri Janki Yadav, resident of village Nayakhap, P.O. Barisakhi, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 31. Ramlakhan Prajapati, aged about 47 years, son of Sri Mahabir Prajapati, resident of village and P.O. Barisakhi, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 32. Ramkeshwar Prasad, aged about 36 years, son of Sri Shaleegram Prasad, Permanent Resident of Village Mairag Khurd, P.O. Jogariya, P.S. Pratappur, District Chatra, PIN-825404, Jharkhand and present resident of village Sijua, P.O. Jogiyara, P.S. Pratappur, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 33. Nandkishor Prajapati, aged about 39 years, son of Sri Maharu Prajapati, resident of village Bukhori, P.O. & P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 34. Praveen Kumar Yadav, resident of village Maheshbathan, P.O. Birajpur, P.S. Palojori, District Deoghar, State Jharkhand. 35. Kajal Kumar Roy, aged about 36 years, son of Sri Jaldhar Roy, resident of village Upperbandha, P.O. Sagarbhanga, P.S. Palojori, District Deoghar, State Jharkhand. 36. Deva Nand Mistry, aged about 35 years, son of Sri Janki Mistry, resident of village Manjhi Metriya, P.O. Birajpur, P.S. Palojori, District Deoghar, State Jharkhand. 37. Kamdeo Mandal, aged about 41 yars, son of Sri Tirthnath Mandal, resident of village Khaga, P.O. Sarsa, P.S. Palojori, District Deoghar, State Jharkhand. 38. Chandan Kumar, aged about 31 years, son of Late Mithilesh Prasad Sah, residen tof village Nawadih, P.O. Busbutia, P.S. Palojori, District Deoghar, State 32 Jharkahnd. 39. Bijay Kumar Dutta, aged about 36 years, son of Sri Sufal Chandra Dutta, resident of Village and P.O. Asna, P.S. Palojori District Deoghar, State Jharkhand. 40. Goutam Kumar Singh, aged about 35 years, son of Sri Mirlidhar Singh, resident of village Uparbandha, P.O. Sagarbandha, P.S. Khaga, District Deoghar, State Jharkhand. 41. Vikash Chandra Roy, aged about 36 years, son of Sri Jaydeo Prasad Roy, residen tof village Uparbandha, P.O. Sagarbandha, P.S. Khaga, District Deoghar, State Jharkhand. 42. Amar Chandra Roy, aged about 45 years, son of Sri Baldeo Prasad Roy, resident of village Bishanpur, P.O. Sagarbandha, P.S. Khaga, District Deoghar, State Jharkhand. 43. Pramod Kumar, aged about 35 years, son of Sri Horil Sahu, resident of vilage Bandu, P.O. and P.S. Lawalong, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 44. Shambhu Kumar Sahu, aged about 37 years, son of Sri Rajendra Sahu, resident of village Bandu, P.O. and P.S. Lawalong, District Chatra, PIN State Jharkhand. 45. Nitu Kumari, aged about 33 years, wife of Sri Anil Prasad Sahu, resident of village Bandu, P.O. and P.S. Lawalong, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 46. Bibha Roy, aged about 38 years, wife of Sri Baleshwar Yadav, resident of village Rupin, P.O.Barisakhi, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 47. Ishwar Yadav, aged about 47 years, son of Sri Keso Yadav, resident of village Sewal, P.O. and P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 48. Basudeo Dnage, aged about 44 years, son of Sri 33 Pyari Mahto, resident of village Dhodhi, P.O.Mandhniay, P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 49. Manoj Kumar Pandey, aged about 45 years, son of Sri Ramjatan Pandey, resident of village and P.O. Mandhnya, P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 50. Anju Kumari, aged about 44 years, wife of Sri Ashok Dangi, resident of village Dhodhi, P.O. Mandhnya, P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 51. Devendra Kumar, aged about 34 years, son of Sri Jainath Mahto, resident of village Govinddih, Barkagaon (West), P.O.a nd P.S. Barkagaon, District Hazaribagh, State Jharkhand. 52. Tulsi Mahto, aged about 37 years, son of Sri Jethu Mahto, resident of village Govinddih, Barkagaon (West), P.O. and P.S. Barkagaon, District Hazaribagh, State Jharkhand. 53. Alok Prasad Dangi, aged about 34 years, son of Sri Daulat Prasad Dangi, resident of village Siwadih, Barkagaon P.O. and P.S. Barkagaon, District Hazaribagh, State Jharkhand. -------- Respondents/Writ Petitioners With L.P.A. No. 628 of 2022 ------ 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand. 2. The Director of Primary Education, Human Resource Development, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi, P.O., 34 P.S. Ranchi and District Ranchi. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. Hazaribagh and District Hazaribagh. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro, P.O., P.S. Bokaro and District Bokaro. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih, P.O., P.S. Giridih and District Giridih. 7. The District Superintendent of Education, Garhwa, P.O., P.S. Garhwa and District Garhwa. 8. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. Dhanbad and District Dhanbad. 9. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra, P.O., P.S. Chatra and District Chatra. 10. The District Superintendent of Education, Godda, P.O., P.S. Godda and District Godda. 11. The District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj, P.O., P.S. Sahebganj and District Sahebganj. 12. The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur, P.O., P.S. Pakur and District Pakur. 13. The District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara, P.O., P.S. Jamtara and District Jamtara. 14. The District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. Deoghar, and District Deoghar. 15. The District Superintendent of Education, Koderma, P.O., P.S. Koderma and District Koderma. 16. The District Superintendent of Education, Dumka, P.O., P.S. Dumka and District Dumka. 17. The District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. Ramgarh and District Ramgarh. 18. The District Superintendent of Education, Gumla, P.O., P.S. Gumla and District Gumla. 19. The District Superintendent of Education, Simdega, P.O., P.S. Simdega and District Simdega. 20. The District Superintendent of Education, 35 Lohardaga, P.O., P.S. Lohardaga and District Lohardaga. 21. The District Superintendent of Education, Latehar, P.O., P.S. Latehar and District Latehar. 22. The District Superintendent of Education, Palamu, P.O., P.S. Palamu and District Palamu. ------------- Appellants/Respondents Versus 1. Manmohan Mahato, aged about 41 years son of Bhiku Mahato resident of village Uparbarga P.O. & P.S. Barlanga Dist. Ramgarh. 2. Dharmnath Mahato aged about 47 years son of Rohin Mahato resident of village Harna P.O. & P.S. Barlanga, Dist. Ramgarh. 3. Bindeshwar Prasad aged about 40 years son of Rameshwar Mahato resident of village Jamira, P.O. Jamira P.S. Rajrappa Distt. Ramgarh. 4. Jagdish Mahato, aged about 39 years son of Sohray Mahato, resident of village Jamira P.O. Jamira P.S. Rajrappa Distt. Ramgarh. 5. Mahendra Kumar, aged about 41 years, son of Baldeo Mahato, resident of village Usra P.O. Bariyatu, P.S. Rajrappa Distt. Ramgarh. 6. Surendra Kumar, aged about 40 years son of Dumar Mahato, resident of village Urba P.O. Bariyatu, P.S. Rajrappa Distt. Ramgarh. 7. Ritlal Mahato, aged about 46 years son of Dinanath Mahato, resident of village Kulhi P.O. Potamdega P.S. Rajrappa Distt. Ramgarh. 8. Dwarika Prasad, aged about 42 years son of Jaleshwar Mahato, resident of village Soso, P.O. Soso, P.S. Rajrappa Distt. Ramgarh. 9. Sonaram Kumar aged about 44 years son of Bhuneshwar Mahato, resident of village Rajrappa P.O. & P.S. Rajrappa Distt. Ramgarh. 36 10. Yugeshwar Mahato, aged about 38 years son of Rameshwar Mahato, resident of village Chano P.O. Gosaibaliya P.S. Barkagaon Distt. Hazaribagh. 11. Vikash Kumar Singh aged about 36 years son of Raj Kishor Singh resident of village Bermo Railway Station, P.O. Bermo P.S. Gandhi Nagar, Distt. Bokaro. 12. Kalicharan Rawani aged about 43 years son of Sri Daso Rawani Resident of village Kurukpania M/111, P.O. Sunday Bazar, P.S. Gandhi Nagar, Dist. Bokaro. 13. Binod Kumar Goswami aged about 43 years son of Jainath Goswami resident of village Balidih Goswami Tolla, P.O. & P.S. Balidih, Distt. Bokaro. 14. Rajesh Kumar, aged about 50 years son of Babulal Ram, resident of village Dhori Basti, P.O. Dhori, P.S. Bermo Distt. Bokaro. 15. Bholaram Rawani, aged about 44 ytears son of Sohan Ram Rawani resident of village Kalyanpur P.O.& P.S. Baroo, Distt. Bokaro. 16. Deepak Kumar Mahato, aged about 39 years son of Raghu Nadan Mahato, resident of village Baroo, P.O. Baroo, P.S. Jaridih, Dist. Bokaro. 17. Lokeshwar Mahato, aged about 43 years son of Hari Lal Mahato, resident of village Budhidih, P.O.& P.S. Dugda, Dist. Bokaro. 18. Raju Kewat, aged about 40 years son of Dukhan Kewat, resident of village Dugda Basti, P.O. Amlo P.S. Bermo Dist Bokaro. 19. Shyam Sundar Mahato, aged about 43 years son of Babulal Mahto, resident of village Pipradih, P.O. Narayanpur P.S. Penk, Distt. Bokaro. 20. Nitish Kumar, aged about 39 years son of Shyamlal Mahto, resident of village Narayanpur, P.O. Narayanpur, P.S. Penk Narayanpur, District Bokaro. 21. Ashok Mahto, aged about 41 years son of 37 Koleshwar Mahto, resident of village Chhotki Punnu, P.O. & P.S. Badki Punnu, Distt. Bokaro. 22. Sandeep Prasad, aged about 39 years, son of Rameshwar Sahu, residejhnt of village Badki Punnu, P.O. & P.S. Mahuatand, District Bokaro. 23. Dwarika Prasad, aged about 44 years son of Raju Mahato, resident of village Khirabeda, P.O. & P.S. Lalpaniyea, Distt. Bokaro. 24. Lalan Prasad, aged about 47 years, son of Fodari Mahto, resident of village Bara, P.O. Atka, P.S. Bishnugarh, Distt. Hazaribagh. 25. Naresh Kumar, aged about 40 years, son of Pyari Mahto, resident of village Chhotki Punnu, P.O.& P.S. Badki Punnu, Distt. Bokaro. 26. Panchdev Kumar Mahto, aged about 38 years son of Bitalal Mahto, resident of village & P.O. Chotki Punnu, P.S. Badki Punnu, Distt. Bokaro. 27. Deepak Kumar Mahatha, aged about 40 years son of Amulya Ratan Mahatha, Resident of village & P.O. Ritudih, P.S. Siwandih, Distt. Bokaro. 28. Tapeshwar Kumar, aged about 50 years son of Ramsharan Sadhu, resident of village P.O. & P.S. Badki Punnu, Bokaro. 29. Bihari Kanisth, agerd about 38 years, son of Mahendra Choudhary, residehnt of village B.S,L.L.H, Street No. 06, Qtr. No. 35, P.O. & P.S. Siwandih, Distt. Bokaro. 30. Santosh Kumar, aged about 43 years son of Khemlal Mahato, resident of village Jamnijara, P.O. Konar Dem, P.S. Bishnugarh, Distt. Hazaribagh. 31. Rohit Kumar Singh, aged about 36 years son of Shankar Singh, Resident of village Bakspura, P.O. & P.S. Nawada, Distt. Hazaribagh. 32. Tirth Kumar Pandey, aged about 51 years, son of 38 Alk Niranjan Pandey, Resident of village Banaso, P.O. Banaso, P.S. Bishnugarh, Distt. Hazaribagh. 33. Baneshwar Mahato, aged about 42 years, son of Somar Mahato, resident of village Retwa, P.O. Karma, P.S. Mandu, Distt. Ramgarh. 34. Shiv Shankar Mahtha, aged about 45 years, son of Shashi Bhushan Mahtha, Resident of village Ritudih, P.O. & P.S. Siwandih, Distt. Ramgarh. 35. Kumar Dharamvir, aged about 41 years, son of Basudeo Mahto, resident of village Pipradih, P.O. Narayanpur, P.S. Penk (Narayanpur), Distt. Bokaro. 36. Prakash Kumar Sharma, aged about 42 years, son of Bhola Thakur, Resident of village Dumrona, P.O. Dumrona, P.S. Ichak, Distt. Hazaribagh. 37. Rakesh Kumar Saw, aged abouyt 37 years, son of Anand Prasad Saw, Resident of village Kelatand, P.O. & P.S. Keskari, Distt. Giridih. 38. Sunil Kumar Sharma, aged about 38 years, son of Shambhunath Sharma, Resident of village Mokamo, P.O. Koridih, P.S. Suriya, Distt. Giridih. 39. Nagmani Kumar Sharma, aged about 40 years, son of Ganesh Mistri, Resident of village Kelatand, P.O. Keskari, P.S. Suriya, Distt. Giridih. 40. Samir Sikrawar, aged about 48 years, son of Late Ram Lakhan Singh, Resident of village Rewali, P.O. Rewali, P.S. Katkamdaga, Distt. Hazaribagh. 41. Manoj Kumar, aged about 46 years, son of Ramlal Sahu, Resident of village Amgawao, P.O. Sila, P.S. Simariya, Distt. Chatra. 42. Suresh Mahato, aged about 54 years, son of Shyamlal Mahto, Resident of village Ichak, P.O. Sila, P.S. Simariya, Distt. Chatra. 43. Manoj Kumar, aged about 50 years, son of Bindeshwari Prasad, Resident of village Ichak (Nawatand), 39 P.O Sila, P.S. Simariya, Distt. Chatra. 44. Arbind Kumar Pandey, aged about 36 years, son of Shree Ram Chandra Pandey, Resident of village Shersingha, P.O. Phulwariya, P.S. Markachho, Distt. Koderma. 45. Birendra Kumar Mahto, aged about 39 years, son of Kauleshwar Mahto, Resident of village Badjna Colliery, P.O. Deviyana, P.S. Nirsha, Distt. Dhanbad. 46. Sharwan Kumar, aged about 38 years, son of Sri Ashwani Sahu, Resident of village Sunday Bazar, P.O. Sunday Bazar, P.S. Gandhi Nagar, Distt. Bokaro. 47. Anand Kumar, aged about 53 years, son of Dwarika Pandey, Resident of village P.O. Padma, P.S. Op. Padma, Distt. Bokaro. 48. Md. Yusuf Ali, aged about 40 years, so of Abdul Aziz, Resident of village Gudwa, P.O. Sitagarh, P.S. Muffasil, Distt. Hazaribagh. 49. Ramesh Prasad Singh, aged about 58 years, son of Jaideo Singh, Resident of village Nawadih, P.O. Sabalpur, P.S. Suriya, Distt. Giridih. 50. Narayan Mahto, aged about 37 years, son of Sukhlal Mahto, Resident of village Nawadih, P.O. Bagodar, P.S. Bagodar, District Giridih. 51. Mahesh Mistri, aged about 53 years, so nof Khublal Mistry, Resident of Village Bagodih, P.O. Bagodih, P.S. Suriya, Distt. Giridih. 52. Intaj Ansari, aged about 25 years, son of Kamrddin Ansari, Resident of village Chainpur, P.O. Chainpur, P.S. Narayanpur, District Jamtara. 53. Gopi Kant Rakshit, aged about 32 years, son of Khagen Rakshit, Resident of village Chainpur, P.O. Chainpur, P.S. Narayanpur, District Jamtara. 54. Manoj Kumar, aged about 44 years, son of Suraj Narayan Prasad, Resident of village & P.O. Kapka, P.S. 40 Barkatha, District Hazaribagh. 55. Nasheem Ansari, aged about 37 years, so of Md. Hanif, Resident of village Butberiya, P.O. Chainpur, P.S. Narayanpur, Distt. Jamtara. ------------- Respondents/Writ Petitioners With L.P.A. No. 629 of 2022 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, ------ Human Resource Development, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand. 2. The Director, Directorate of Primary Education, Human Resource Development, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand. 3. The Deputy Commssioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. and District Hazaribagh, State Jharkhand. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh District Hazaribagh, State Jharkhand. 5. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S., District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 7. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Sahebganj, P.O. & P.S. Sahebganj District Sahebganj, State Jharkhand. 8. The District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj, P.O. P.S. Sahebganj, District Sahebganj. 9. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Giridih, P.O., P.S. and District Giridih, State Jharkhand. 41 10. The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih. 11. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh District Ramgarh, State Jharkhand. 12. The District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. and District Ramgarh. 13. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur District Pakur, State Jharkhand. 14. The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur, P.O. & Pakur P.S. District Pakur. 15. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Koderma, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, District Koderma, State Jharkhand. 16. The District Superintendent of Education, Koderma, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, District Koderma. 17. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar, State Jharkhand. 18. The District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar. 19. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda , District Godda, State Jharkhand. 20. The District Superintendent of Education, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda District Godda. 21. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro District Bokaro, State Jharkhand. 22. The District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro District Bokaro. 23. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. 42 Dumka District Dumka, State Jharkhand. 24. The District Superintendent of Education, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka District Dumka. 25. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Chatra, P.O. & P.S. Chatra, District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 26. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra, P.O. & P.S. Chatra District Chatra. 27. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Jamtara, P.O. & P.S. Jamtara, District Jamtara, State Jharkhand. 28. The District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara, P.O. & P.S. Jamtara, District Jamtara. ------------- Appellants/Respondents 1. Md. Afshar Hussain, aged about 37 years, son of Md. Versus Hussain Ahmed, Resident of Baswa, P.O. & P.S. Mahagama, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 2. Karamchand Yadav, aged about 46 years, son of Motilal Yadav, resident of Dharmodih, P.O.Dharmodih, P.S. Mahagama, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 3. Sanjay Kumar Jha, aged about 50 years son of Dhananjay Prasad Jha, resident of Mahagama, P.O. & P.S. Mahagama, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 4. Md. Sharif Ansari, aged about 50 years, son of Md. Dabiruddin Ansari, resident of Barmasia, P.O. Nunbatta, P.S. Nunbatta, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 5. Manoj Kumar Rana, aged about 38 years son of Shatrughan Pandit, resident of Tetaria, P.O & P.S. Bara Simra, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 6. Sanjiv Kumar, aged about 46 years, son of Gobardhan Mandal, resident of Rangatarn, P.O. & P.S. Pathargama, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 7. Uday Kant Sah, aged about 52 years son of Bhudeo 43 Sah, resident of Dhodhari, P.O. Ramla P.S. Godda, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 8. Alimuddin Ansari Betab, aged about 47 years son of Abdul Quasim resident of Dulidih, P.O. Chatra, P.S. Poraiyahat, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 9. Md. Abid Alam, aged about 39 years, son of Md. Matin Alam, resident of Dhanjor, P.O. Baliyadangal, P.S. Maheshpur, District Pakur, State Jharkhand. 10. Akhilesh Kumar, aged about 45 years, so of Sukdeo Panjiyara, resident of Babhaniya, P.O. & P.S. Marpa, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 11. Shiv Chandra Kumar, aged about 41 yars, son of Ram Briksh Pandit, resident of Kathon, P.O. Kathon, P.S. Poraiyahat, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 12. Satyawan Kumar, aged about 46 years, son of Makardhwaj Pandit, resident of Kurmi Chak, P.O.&P.S. Kurmi Chak, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 13. Gopal Krishna Sah, aged about 38 years, son of Late Yamuna Prasad Sah, resident of Boha, P.O. Khariyani, P.S. Patharama, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 14. Dilip Ramani, aged about 42 years, son of Sri Fekan Ramani, resident of Gangta Khurd, P.O. & P.S. & District Godda, State Jharkhand. 15. Nehal Raj, aged about 42 years, so of Kamala Kant Sah, resident of Poreyahat, P.O. Poreyahat, P.S. Poreyahat, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 16. Rabindra Prasad Sah, aged about 56 years, son of Bhagwat Prasad Sah, resident of Nawadih, P.O.Nawadih, P.S. Jama, District Dumka, State Jharkhand. 17. Rajiv Kumar Poddar, aged about 48 years, son of Thakur Prasad Poddar, resident of Mirjachak, P.O. Anjana, P.S. Anjana, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 18. Birendra Kumar Singh, aged about 55 years, son 44 of Rambilas Singh, resident of Yogidih, P.O.Taradiha P.S. Taradiha, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 19. Rajesh Kumar, aged about 40 years son of Mahendra Prasad Sah, resident of Pathargama P.O. & P.S. Pathargama, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 20. Sunil Kumar Bhagat, aged about 51 years son of Late Ram Narayan Bhagatr, resident of Tulsikitta, P.O. & P.S. Pathargama, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 21. Sachidanand Pandit, aged about 47 years son of Sri Madhushudhan Pandit, resident of Pathargama, P.O. & P.S. Pathargama, DIstrict Godda, State Jharkhand. 22. Raj Kumar Pandit, aged about 36 years son of Dindayal Pandit, resident of Bagjori, P.O. Lalmatia, P.S. Mahagama, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 23. Om Prakash Jaiswal, aged about 39 years, son of Shiv Kumar Bhagat, resident of Bagjori, PO Lalmatia PS Mahagama, District Pakur, State Jharkhand. 24. Mukesh Kumar, aged about 41 years son of Ramesh Mandal, resident of Babhania P.O. Goria & P.S. Lalmatia, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 25. Obinath Mahto, aged about 41 years son of Panchanand Mahto, resident of Malbhadroy, P.O. Haripur Gairbanna, P.S. Godda, District Godda, State Jarkhand. 26. Md. Abdul Mannan aged about 40 years son of Md. Hanif resident of Kushmahra P.O. Kushmahra P.S. Hanwara, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 27. Dilip Kumar Yadav, aged about 41 years son of Kalicharan Yadav, resident of Kusumghati, P.O. Kerobazar, P.S. Pathargama, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 28. Khub Lal Sah, aged about 45 years son of Late Rupan Sah, resident of Ghatiyari, P.O. Ghatiyari, P.S. Sunderpahari, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 29. Sanjay Kumar Saha, aged about 46 years son of 45 Kulesh Mandal, resident of Ghatiyari, P.O. Ghatiyari, P.S. Sunderpahari, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 30. Anil Kumar Pandit, aged about 37 years son of Bholanath Pandit, resident of Tilobadar, P.O. Kurmichak, P.S. Kurmichak, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 31. Md. Mustaquim Ansari, aged about 56 years son of Md. Ulfat Mian, resident of Mahuatand, P.O. Ghatiyari P.S. Sunderpahari, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 32. Shambhu Kumar Saha, aged about 48 years son of Bachneshwar Saha, resident of Bhanjpur, P.O. Bhanjpur, P.S. Mahagama, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 33. Md. Murtaja Ansari, aged about 35 years son of Md. Bechan Ansari, resident of Baredih, P.O. Lahathi, P.S. Mahagama, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 34. Suchan Kumar Sah, aged about 38 years son of Adhik Lal Sah, resident of Ghatiyari, P.O. Ghatiyari P.S. Sunderpahari, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 35. Anil Kumar Sah, aged about 48 years son of Dhaneshwar Sah, resident of Balpahari, P.O. Sarouni Bazar, P.S. Sarouni Bazar, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 36. Pankaj Kumar Mandal, aged about 49 years son of Anil Kumar Mandal, resident of Chorwad Block Poriyahat, P.O. Agiyamore P.S. Poraiyahat, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 37. Manoj Kumar Goswami, aged about 51 years son of Shyam Prasad Goswami, resident of Boriyo, P.O.&P.S. Boriyo, District Sahebganj, State Jharkhand. 38. Nitya Nand, aged about 43 years son of Sri Ganga Sagar Sah, resident of Pelgarhi, P.O. & P.S. Kurmichak, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 39. Jay Shankar Prasad, aged about 41 years son of Arun Kumar Mandal, resident of Sarouni Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Sarouni Bazar, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 46 40. Bipin Kumar, aged about 45 years son of Sri Tribeni Prasad Jaiswal, resident of Mohanpur, P.O. Mohanpur, P.S. Mahagama, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 41. Srikant Kumar, aged about 37 years, son of Indralal Pandit, resident of Tilobadar, P.O. Kurmichak, P.S. Kurmichak District Godda, State Jharkhand. 42. Niraj Jha, aged about 38 years, son of Subodh Jha, resident of Baniyadih, P.O. Baniyadih, P.S. Thakur Gangti District Godda, State Jharkhand. 43. Girendra Kumar Sharma, aged about 46 years, son of Raghu Nandan Sharma, resident of Khajri Chak, P.O. Malmandro, P.S. Malmandro, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 44. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, aged about 43 years son of Raghu Nandan Sharma, resident of Khajri Chak, P.O. Malmandro, P.S. Malmandro, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 45. Dinesh Kumar Sah, aged about 36 years, son of Phulchand Sah, resident of Jognadih, P.O. Jamni Paharpur, P.S. Godda, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 46. Sharvan Kumar, aged about 37 years, son of Indrajeet Sah, resident of Jognadih, P.O. Jamni Paharpur, P.S. Godda, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 47. Bhairo Manjhi, aged about 56 years, son of Late Guru Dayal Manjhi, resident of Bharti Kitta, P.O. Khatnei, P.S. Godda, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 48. Gopal Krishna Upadhyay, ageda bout 58 years, son of Sridhar Upadhyay, resident of Viran Kitta, P.O. Balbadda, P.S. Godda, District Pakur, State Jharkhand. 49. Dilip Kumar Mahto, aged about 50 years, son of Bhim Mahto, resident of Kouwadhab, P.O. Chinadhab, P.S. Godda District Godda, State Jharkhand. 50. Ram Khelan Sah, ageda bout 42 years, son of 47 Panchanan Sah, resident of Chainahab, P.O. Chainadhab, P.S. Godda District Godda, State Jharkahand. 51. Pradeep Kumar Das, aged about 46 years, son of Dhani Kumar, resident of Chorbad, P.O. Agiyamore, P.S. Godda District Godda, State JHarkhand. 52. Chandan Kumar Singh, aged about 35 years son of Gopal Prasad Singh, resident of Pandubathan, P.O. Godda College, P.S. Godda (Nagar Thana), District Godda, State Jharkhand. 53. Saroj Kumar Yadav aged about 42 years son of Sushil Kumar Yadav, resident of Bhattachak, P.O. Gandhigram, P.S. Pathargama, District Godda, State Jharkahnd. 54. Jay Kishor Kapri, aged about 53 years son of Yogendra Kapri resident of Bisaha P.O. Latautana, P.S. Pathargama, District Godda, State Jharkahnd. 55. Rajesh Kumar Sah, aged about 37 years son of Sri Kuldeo Sah, resident of Gaychand, P.O. Chinyadhab, P.S. Godda, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 56. Bishnu Kumar Paul, aged about 39 years son of Ashawani Kumar Paul, resident of Saranda, P.O. Khariyani, P.S. Pathargama, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 57. Dinesh Kumar Mandal, aged about 56 years son of Gangaram Mandal, resident of Ghatpaharpur, P.O. Mohanpur, P.S. Godda, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 58. Devendra Pandit, aged about 57 years, son of Thakur Dayal Pandit, resident of Runjee P.O. Baniyadih, P.S. Thakur Gangti, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 59. Nagendra Kumar, aged about 43 years son of Sri Anant Kumar, resident of Runjee, P.O. Baniyadih, P.S. Thakur Gangti, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 60. Bhawani Mahto, aged about 58 years son of Late Govind Mahto, resident of Dahupakiya, P.O. Chapri, P.S. 48 Thakur Gangti, District Godda, State Jharkhand. ------------- Respondents/Writ Petitioners With W.P. (S). No. 2049 of 2022 ------ Manoj Kumar Mahto, aged about 42 years son of Prahlad Mahato, resident of village Kuiya, P.O. Amtal, P.S. Tisra, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. ------------- Writ petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagganathpur, Distirct Ranchi, State Jharkhand. 3. The Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagganathpur, Distirct Ranchi, State Jharkhand. 4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Chatra, P.O. & P.S. & District Chatra, State Jharkhand. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra, P.O. & P.S. & District Chatra, State Jharkhand 6. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Koderma, P.O.& P.S. & District Koderma, State Jharkhand. 7. The District Superintendent of Education, Koderma, P.O.& P.S. & District Koderma, State Jharkhand. 8. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Dhanbad, P.O.&P.S. & District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 9. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad, P.O.&P.S. & District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 10. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District 49 Education Establishment Committee, Pakur, P.O.& P.S. & District Pakur, State Jharkhand. 11. The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur, P.O.& P.S. & District Pakur, State Jharkhand. 12. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Giridih, P.O. & P.S. & District Giridih, State Jharkhand. 13. The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih, P.O. & P.S. & District Giridih, State Jharkhand. 14. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. & District Bokaro, State Jharkhand 15. The District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. & District Bokaro, State Jharkhand 16. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Godda, P.O. & P.S. & District Godda, State Jharkhand. 17. The District Superintendent of Education, Godda, P.O. & P.S. & District Godda, State Jharkhand. 18. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. & District Dumka, State Jharkhand 19. The District Superintendent of Education, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. & District Dumka, State Jharkhand 20. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. & District Hazaribagh, State Jharkhand 21. The District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. & District Hazaribagh, State Jharkhand 22. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S. & Ramgarh, State Jharkhand 23. The District Superintendent of Education, 50 Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S. & Ramgarh, State Jharkhand 24. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Sahebganj, P.O. & P.S. & District Sahabganj, State Jharkhand 25. The District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj, P.O. & P.S. & District Sahabganj, State Jharkhand. 26. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Jamtara, P.O. & P.S. & District Jamtara, State Jharkhand 27. The District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara, P.O. & P.S. & District Jamtara, State Jharkhand ------------- Respondents ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR ------- For the Appellants-State: Mr.Sachin Kumar, AAG-II For the Respondents Mr. Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG II Ms. Surabhi, AC to AAG II Mr. Amit Kumar, SC (Mines)-II : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Adv Mr. Kumar Sundaram, Adv Mr. TejaswatiSafalta, Adv Mr. Ishank Ranjan, Adv Mr. Chanchal Jain, Adv Ms. Tanya Singh, Adv [LPA 230/22] Mrs. Sarita Gupta, Adv Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Adv [LPA 482 & 629/22] [WPS 2049/22] Mr. Baleshwar Yadav, Adv [LPA 626/22] Mr. Deepankar, Adv For the Intervener : Mr. Abhilsh Kumar, Adv ------ (LPA 203/22) 51 Order No.23/Dated 15th September,2023 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J: 1. Since these appeals arise out of common order/judgment, as such they are heard together
Decision
and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. One writ petition, being W.P. (S) No. 2049 of 2022, is also listed along with these batch matters. It appears from order dated 16.08.2022 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2049 of 2022 that on the request made by learned counsel for the parties that since similar matters are pending before the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 203 of 2022 and analogous cases, writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2049 of 2022 was directed to be listed along with LPA No. 203 of 2022 and analogous cases for adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2049 of 2022 has been listed along with these batch matters, as the outcome of the writ petition will depend upon these intra-court appeals. 3. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent, is directed against common order/judgment dated 16.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2378 of 2019 and batch matters, whereby and whereunder, while disposing of the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge directed the respondents to 52 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. It was further directed that 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 the 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 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. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge in these intra-court appeals. 4. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petitions and annexures appended 53 therewith, is as under: 5. Advertisements for appointment of candidates to the post of Intermediate Trained Teachers in different districts of the State of Jharkhand were published by the Office of District Superintendent of Education of the respective. As per the advertisement, 50% of the posts were required to be filled by Para Teachers and rest 50% seats were to be filled with non-para teacher category candidates. Petitioners, having requisite qualifications, applied for the aforesaid vacancies in their respective para category and non-para category in different districts of the State of Jharkhand and submitted their certificates. It is stated that their names appeared at the respective districts in the data base cum Merit list. Thereafter, several rounds of counseling were held at all the districts and several candidates were called for counseling and given appointment. 6. However, due to several irregularities, inconsistency and anomalies in the counseling process, several writ petitions were filed before this Court and two of the writ petitions, which are of relevance to adjudicate the lis are being W.P.(S) no. 19 of 2016 with W.P.(S.) no. 32 of 2016 and other analogous cases, were taken up together and the 54 learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions vide judgment dated 02.02.2017 directing the respondents-authorities to make appointment according to merit of the candidates on all unfilled advertised vacancies by conducting one time counseling, against which, the respondent-State preferred Letters Patent Appeal, being L.P.A. no. 168 of 2017, which was dismissed by the Hon‟ble Division Bench vide judgment dated 11.05.2018 with the specific observation to comply the directions as issued by learned Single Judge at paragraphs 19 and 20 of the judgment dated 02.02.2017 passed in W.P.(S) no. 19 of 2016 with W.P.(S.) no. 32 of 2016. 7. Simultaneously, on the same day i.e. 11.05.2018 another Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. no. 186 of 2017 with L.P.A. no. 199 of 2017 preferred against the judgment/order dated 02.03.2017 passed in W.P.(S.) No. 6031 of 2015 and W.P. (S) No. 173 of 2016 was taken up for consideration by the Hon‟ble Division Bench and the same was disposed of directing the respondents- authorities to initiate the counseling of the original petitioners as early as possible so that it can be completed within a period of four months from today and further their candidature shall be considered as 55 per non-para teacher category vacancies subject to fulfilling the conditions by these appellants regarding eligibility criteria for age etc. 8. Further, on 13.05.2019 another two sets of writ petitions, being W.P. (S.) no. 2142 of 2019 with analogous cases; and W.P.(S) no. 768 of 2019 with analogous cases, were taken up and allowed vide order dated 13.05.2019 holding that in view of order passed in LPA No. 186 of 2017, not only the appellants of the said intra-court appeals but all the writ petitioners need to be given a chance in the counseling processes for the reason that the issue which was in dispute has now been settled and ambiguity as to whether a Para Teacher can apply under Non-para Teacher category has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No. 186 of 2017 and accordingly direction was passed upon the State to include the name of all these writ petitioners also in the counseling process for selection for the post of Assistant Teachers. 9. On the basis of several judicial pronouncements and directions issued by the this Court in writ petitions and intra-court appeals, the State issued “Resolution” on 02.05.2019 stating therein to hold final round of counseling against the 56 remaining vacant seats for each districts in the respective categories (Para category as well as Non Para category). Further, several directions and conditions were issued for counseling in the said “Resolution” dated 02.05.2019. 10. It is the case of the petitioners that thereafter a tentative list was prepared and another round of district wise counseling was conducted. It is stated that though the petitioners had applied for several districts but their names were not included in counseling list for any of the districts, on the contrary, candidates having lesser marks than the petitioners were included in the counseling list and were also called for appearing in the counseling and had been given appointment in the year 2019 itself but the petitioners were left out. 11. Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioners approached this Court by filing series of writ petitions on the ground that counseling was to be conducted against the vacant seats in light of the advertisement of the year 2015 for all the respective categories i.e. para as well as non-para category. Further, since the petitioners have secured more marks in the merit list than the candidates who have been appointed in the year 2019 therefore, the 57 candidature of these petitioners ought to have been considered. Since these petitioners were never called for counseling as such their candidature ought to have been considered in terms of Clause 6 of the Resolution/Sankalp dated 02.05.2019. 12. Learned counsel further argued that in light of the direction given in Order dated 13.05.2019 in W.P. (S) no. 768 of 2019 with analogous cases the Respondents ought to have considered the cases of all the candidates depending upon the merit list including the candidates who had not approached the Hon‟ble Court. For several districts, the names of same candidates were published for counseling and as such, the seats remained vacant even after the counseling was conducted as one candidate could have participated in the counseling for only one district. 13. Learned counsel has further submitted that in several districts the candidates who have obtained lesser marks than the petitioners have been included in the merit list and called for counseling and appointed after counseling, only on the ground that earlier they had approached before this Hon‟ble Court for redressal of their grievances. 14. The said ground of the respondent-State is not 58 tenable since a clear-cut observation has been made by this Hon‟ble Court that, “When this dispute is set at rest, it cannot be said that only those persons, on whose application the issue is resolved, can only get the benefit. Benefit of the decision should be given to all those persons, who are governed by the final judgment”. 15. Learned counsel further submitted that the Respondent State filed Counter Affidavit showing the chart of cut off marks for all the districts of State of Jharkhand and from there it becomes evident that the petitioners are having more marks than the last candidate who have been appointed in their respective categories at their respective districts. 16. While on the other hand, the respondents-State submitted that advertised posts belong to district cadre, hence the cut-off marks vary for each category in each district due to the number of applications received by the respective districts and number of candidates appearing in the counselling process. 17. The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, allowed the writ petition, against which the instant intra-court appeals have been preferred. 18. It is evident from the aforesaid factual aspect 59 that in pursuance to „Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Recruitment Rules, 2012’ advertisements were published, for appointment to the post of Intermediate Trained Teachers in different districts of the State of Jharkhand, by the Office of District Superintendent of Education of the respective districts. As per advertisement, 50% of the seats are required to be filled by Para Teachers and rest 50% seats were to be filled with non-para teacher categories. Petitioners, having requisite qualifications, applied for the aforesaid vacancies in their respective para category and non-para category in different districts of the State of Jharkhand and submitted their certificates. 19. It is alleged that their names have appeared at the respective districts in the data base cum Merit list but they were not finally selected. In the meanwhile, due to several irregularities, inconsistency and anomalies in the counseling process, several writ applications were filed before this Court. 20. The first set of writ petitions, which are of relevance for adjudication of lis herein and upon which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the parties are W.P. (S) no. 19 of 2016 60 and other analogous cases, which was allowed vide judgment dated 02.02.2017 by the learned Single Judge directing the respondents-authorities to make appointment according to merit of the candidates on all unfilled advertised vacancies by conducting one time counseling. 21. Being aggrieved with the order passed by learned Single Judge, the respondent-State preferred Letters Patent Appeal, being L.P.A. no. 168 of 2017, which was dismissed by the Hon‟ble Division Bench vide Judgment dated 11.05.2018. 22. Another set of Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. no. 186 of 2017 with L.P.A. no. 199 of 2017 was preferred by the writ petitioners-appellants which was disposed of directing the Respondents- authorities to initiate the counseling of the original petitioners as early as possible and further it was held that their candidature shall be considered as per non-para teacher category vacancies subject to fulfilling the conditions by these appellants regarding eligibility criteria for age etc. 23. It further appears that two sets of writ petitions being W.P.(S.) no. 2142 of 2019 with analogous cases; and W.P.(S) no. 768 of 2019 with analogous cases, were allowed vide order 13.05.2019 61 holding that in view of order passed in LPA No. 186 of 2017, not only the appellants of the said LPA but all the writ petitioners need to be given a chance in the counseling processes for the reason that the issue which was in dispute has now been settled and ambiguity as to whether a Para Teacher can apply under Non-para Teacher category has been set at rest by the Hon‟ble Division Bench in LPA No. 186 of 2017 and accordingly direction was passed upon the State to include the name of all these writ petitioners also in the counseling process for selection for the post of Assistant Teachers. 24. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Jharkhand taking into consideration the judicial pronouncements, as mentioned above and directions issued by the this Court in writ petitions and intra-court appeals, issued “Resolution” on 02.05.2019 stating therein to hold final round of counseling against the remaining vacant seats for each districts in the respective categories (Para category as well as Non Para category). 25. It is the case of the petitioners that though the petitioners applied for several districts but their names were not included in counseling list of any of the districts, however, names of candidates having 62 lesser marks than the petitioners were included in the counseling list and were also called for appearing in the counseling and had been given appointment in the year 2019 itself. 26. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners approached this Court by filing series of writ petitions on the ground that counseling was to be conducted against the vacant seats in light of the advertisement of the year 2015 for all the respective categories i.e. para as well as non-para category. Since the petitioners have secured more marks in the merit list than the candidates who have been appointed in the year 2019 therefore, the candidature of these petitioners ought to have been considered. 27. The learned Single Judge has considered the rival submissions advanced by the parties and taking into consideration the order passed by Co- ordiante Division Bench of this Court in LPA 186 of 2017 wherein it has been decided by directing the State for inviting the petitioners as one time measure even the candidate who are under para category and are willing to participate in the counseling under non-para category. The learned Single Judge taking note of order passed by this Court in LPA No. 186 of 2017 has allowed all the writ petitions. 63 28. The order passed by learned Single Judge is under challenge before this Court. 29. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned AAG II appearing for the appellant-State has submitted that the order passed by learned Single Judge, which is impugned in these appeals, is contrary to the order passed by Co-ordinate learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016, wherein it has been made clear that there shall be only one round of counseling in all the districts of the State. 30. Further, the candidates who were earlier called for counseling shall not be called for counseling except, those permitted by order of the Court. 31. The ground has been taken that the aforesaid order has been affirmed by Division Bench of this Court but the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions has not appreciated those facts by taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment in the similar circumstances. 32. It has further been submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that resolution dated 02.05.2019 issued in pursuance of the guidelines issued by this Court that the candidates who were previously called for counseling would not be invited for counseling. 64 33. Hence, the order passed by learned Single Judge, which is impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law. 34. Per contra, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel assisted by other counsel appearing for the writ petitioners has defended the order passed by learned Single Judge wherein the learned Single Judge has considered the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016, which has been affirmed in L.P.A. No. 168 of 2017. 35. It has submitted that if the facts of the case of W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 will be considered which has been filed on behalf of candidates under para- teachers category and in that circumstances this Court has passed order that even if the vacancy remains a candidate will have only one chance to participate in the process of counseling. But the learned Co-ordinate Division Bench, the day when the order passed by learned Co-ordinate Single Bench in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 has affirmed the said order by dismissing the intra-court appeal being LPA No. 168 of 2017, has also decided an issue on the same day in LPA No. 186 of 2017 with LPA No. 199 of 2017, wherein order passed in W.P. (S) No. 65 6031 of 2015 and W.P. (S) No. 173 of 2016 was under challenge, in which the Co-ordinate learned Division Bench while disposing of the said LPAs has directed the respondent to consider the application of candidates working as para teacher category even if they fall under non-para category. 36. Learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners on the basis of order passed in W.P. (S) No. 6031 of 2015 with W.P.(S) No. 173 of 2016, wherein opportunity has been provided for consideration of the candidature of para teachers under non-para teacher category which has been affirmed vide order dated 11.05.2018 passed in LPA No. 186 of 2017 with LPA No. 199 of 2017, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has considered the order passed in LPA No. 186 of 2017 with LPA No. 199 of 2017 and accordingly allowed the writ petition by directing the respondents to provide a chance of counseling under non-para category. 37. The learned senior counsel on the basis of aforesaid ground has submitted that the order passed by learned Single Judge suffers from no error. 38. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record and 66 finding recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 39. The facts, which are not in dispute, is that the petitioners, who were working as para teachers in the different districts of the State of Jharkhand, in pursuance to the advertisement published for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers, applied under para and non-para category. 40. It is pertinent to note here that the said advertisement was published in pursuance to „Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Recruitment Rules, 2012’ wherein it was decided to fill 50% seats amongst para teacher category and rest 50% from non-para teacher category. From plain reading of Rules, 2012, it is evident that the Rules, 2012 nowhere put embargo upon the para teacher category candidate to apply under non-para teacher for consideration of their candidature if they are otherwise eligible to apply for the same as per eligibility criteria fixed for non-para teacher category i.e., without granting any relaxation; meaning thereby if a candidate belonging to para-teacher category and intends to apply under non-para category, such candidate has to fulfill the eligibility criteria of non-para category and no relaxation of age 67 etc. of para category would be given to such candidate. 41. It is the case of the writ petitioners that though they belong to para-teacher category but having fulfilled the eligibility criteria of non-para teacher category applied for consideration of their candidature under non-para teacher category. 42. It is further case of the petitioners that in initial round of counseling though they could not come in the zone of consideration but later on when they reached for counseling they were not allowed to participate on the ground that the petitioners are falling under para teacher and having applied under non-para category as such they are not entitled for counseling under non-para category. 43. It is stated that thereafter, several rounds of counseling were held in all the districts and several candidates were called for counseling and were given appointment but the petitioners were left. 44. It further appears from the pleading available on record that due to several irregularities, inconsistency and anomalies in the counseling process, several writ applications were filed before this Court and two of the writ petitions, which are of relevance to adjudicate the lis are being W.P.(S) No. 68 19 of 2016 with W.P.(S.) no. 32 of 2016 and other analogous cases which were taken up together and the learned Single Judge after hearing learned counsel for the parties allowed the writ petitions vide judgment dated 02.02.2017 directing the respondents-authorities to make appointment according to merit of the candidates on all unfilled advertised vacancies by conducting one time counseling. 45. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted as under: “19. In the light of the foregoing discussions, the following directions are issued (i) A public notice, indicating that counselling for all unfilled advertised vacancies in all the districts shall be conducted in the 3/4" week of March, 2017. It shall be published in two daily newspapers on or before 23.02.2017. The public notice shall also indicate that no further opportunity to produce original certificate would be granted to the candidates. The counselling may continue for more than one day. (ii) An exercise to short-list eligible candidates viz-a-viz vacancy-position in each category shall be undertaken and candidates twice the number of total vacancies, merit-wise, after the last selected candidate shall be put on the web-site, preferably by the 3 week of March, 2017. However, it may not be necessary to call all short listed candidates for counselling. (iii) The name of candidates falling under the "zone of consideration as indicated in clause (ii) above shall be put on the web-site, atleast one week prior to the date of counselling. (iv)The entire exercise must be concluded by 31.03.2017. 69 20. It is further made clear that there shall be only one counselling in all the districts of the State and counselling shall be conducted simultaneously in all the districts. The candidates who were earlier called for counselling shall not be permitted to participate in the counselling except, those permitted by an order of the Court.” 46. Against order dated 02.02.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 and analogous cases, the State preferred intra-court appeal being LPA No. 168 of 2017, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.05.2018 affirming the order passed by learned Single Judge. For ready reference, paragraph 7 and 8 of the judgment is quoted as under: “7.Further, there are large number of vacancies still left, viz. out of total number of advertised vacancies of 10,000, 3832 vacancies are still unfilled. Thus, no prejudice will be caused to the appellant, if direction, given in Paragraph 19 and 20 of order dated 2nd February, 2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 19 of 2016, is complied by the appellant State. On the contrary, it appears that State is given one more chance to perform its duties. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition vide order dated 2nd February, 2017. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and same is, hereby, dismissed. We, therefore, direct the Secretary, School Education and Literacy Development Department, Government of Jharkhand to complete the exercise of counselling as directed by the learned Single Judge in Paragraph 19 and 20, as aforesaid, as early as possible and practicable, and in no case later than a period of four months from today.” 70 47. It further appears the learned Co-ordinate Division Bench, on the same date i.e., on 11.05.2018 allowed the Letters Patent Appeals being L.P.A. no. 186 of 2017 with L.P.A. no. 199 of 2017 filed by the writ petitioners-appellants against the judgment dated 02.03.2017 passed in W.P.(S.) No. 6031 of 2015 and W.P. (S) No. 173 of 2016, wherein issue was that though the petitioners have not applied under reserved category they were compelled to be treated as reserved category candidates on the ground that writ petitioners since were working as para-teachers they must apply and they shall be deemed to have applied under reserved category meant for para teachers. 48. The Co-ordinate Division Bench while allowing the intra-court appeal directed the Respondents- authorities to initiate the counseling of the original petitioners as early as possible so that it can be completed within a period of four months from today and further their candidature shall be considered as per non-para teacher category vacancies subject to fulfilling the conditions by these appellants regarding eligibility criteria for age etc. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph 8 and 9 of the judgment is quoted as under: 71 “8.As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, we, hereby, quash and set aside the common judgment and order dated 2nd March, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P.(S) No. 6031 of 2015 and W.P.(S) No. 173 of 2016. 9. We, hereby, direct the respondent State to initiate the counselling of the original petitioners, as early as possible and practicable, so that it can be completed within a period of four months from today. These appellants shall approach or remain present before the Dy. Commissioner of the concerned District, as early as possible and practicable, within a period of 12 weeks from today and if they are approaching the Dy. Commissioner of the concerned district, within a further period of two months thereafter, the counselling exercise will be completed and their candidature -6- shall be considered as per Non-Para Teacher category vacancies subject to fulfilling the conditions by these appellants regarding eligibility criteria for age etc.” 49. It further requires to refer herein the order passed by Co-ordinate Division Bench in LPA No. 172 of 2018, preferred by writ petitioners-appellants which was allowed vide order dated 23.07.2018. The said intra-court appeal was preferred against order passed in W.P. (S) No. 178 of 2016 whereby these appellants though have not applied under reserved category were compelled to be treated as reserved category candidates. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the judgment passed in LPA No. 172 of 2018 is quoted as under: “12. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, we, hereby, quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 1st February, 2018, passed by the 72 learned Single Judge, in W.P.(S) No. 178 of 2016. 13. We, hereby, direct the respondent State to initiate the counselling of the original petitioners, as early as possible and practicable, so that it can be completed within a period of four months from today. These appellants shall approach or remain present before the Dy. Commissioner of the concerned District, as early as possible and practicable, within a period of 12 weeks from today and if they are approaching the Dy. Commissioner of the concerned district, within a further period of two months thereafter, the counselling exercise will be completed and their candidature shall be considered as per Non-Para Teacher category vacancies subject to fulfilling the conditions by these appellants regarding eligibility criteria for age etc.” 50. It appears that some aggrieved para-teachers again approached this Court by filing series of writ petitions which were clubbed together being W.P. (S) No. 2142 of 2019 and analogous cases, which was disposed of directing the respondents-State to include the name of those petitioners also in the counseling process for selection of Assistant Teachers. For ready reference, the relevant portion of order passed by learned Single Judge is quoted as under: “2.In view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 186 of 2017, this Court feels that not only the appellants of the said L.P.A. but all the writ petitioners also need to be given a chance in the counselling processes. This is for the reason that the issue, which was in dispute, has now been settled and the ambiguity as to whether a Para Teacher can apply under Non-Para Teacher category has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 186 of 2017. 73 3. Further, I find that several similar orders have been passed in L.P.A. Nos. 347 of 2018, 433 of 2018 etc. All the writ petitioners are governed by the principle which has been laid down in the judgment passed in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals. Thus, this Court feels that all these writ petitioners are entitled to get the similar benefit. 4. Thus, I direct the State to include the name of all these writ petitioners also in the counselling process for selection of Assistant Teachers. 5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, these entire writ applications stands allowed in terms of the order passed in L.P.A. Nos. 186 of 2017, 347 of 2018 and 433 of 2018.” 51. The case of the petitioners herein is that the petitioners, admittedly working as para-teachers, applied under the non-para category fulfilling all the eligibility critera of non-para category, but were restrained from participating in counseling, as such common prayer was made for direction upon the respondents to consider their candidature in their respective categories i.e. para and non-para category, for the districts for which they have applied against the vacant seats of Intermediate Trained Teachers. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties, allowed the writ petition. Relevant portion of judgment is quoted as under: “18. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, I hereby direct the respondents to 74 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, theDeputy 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 puttingthe 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. 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 reasonswhatsoeveras the advertisement for appointment of these teachers are of 2015 and the aforesaid directions have beenissuedin peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, which shall be not taken as precedent. 20. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all these writ petitions stand allowed.” 52. Aggrieved thereof, the respondents-State has preferred intra-Court appeals, which were clubbed together and are under challenge before this Court. 53. Learned counsel for the State-appellant by referring to the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 (affirmed in LPA No. 168 of 2017) has submitted that in the order passed by learned Single 75 Judge being confirmed by learned Division Bench of this Court, it has clearly been directed that there shall be only one counseling in all the districts of the State but the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the direction as passed in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016. 54. It has further been submitted that the learned Single Judge has further failed to consider that learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 (affirmed in LPA No. 168 of 2017) has clearly directed that the candidates who were earlier called for counseling shall not be permitted in the counseling except those permitted by the order of the Court. 55. It has further been submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that resolution dated 02.05.2019 issued in pursuance of the guidelines issued by this Court that the candidates who were previously called for counseling would not be invited for counseling. 56. This Court, on appreciation of rival submissions advanced on behalf of parties, is of the view that the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge does not require interference on the following grounds: I. It is admitted fact that the Co-ordinate Single 76 Bench has passed order dated 02.02.2017 in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 and analogous cases wherein at paragraph 20 direction has been given that there shall be only one counseling holding therein that “It is further made clear that there shall be only one counseling in all the districts of the State …”. II. The order dated 02.02.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 19 of 2016 and analogous cases was affirmed in intra-court appeal i.e., in L.P.A. No. 168 of 2017 showing no interference in the order passed by learned Single Judge. III. Further the issue of allowing the candidates falling under para-teacher category to participate in the process of selection under non-para teacher category fell for consideration before the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 6031 of 2015 and analogous cases, which was negated, against which the writ petitioners preferred intra-court appeal being LPA 186 of 2017 with LPA 199 of 2017, which was allowed vide order dated 11.05.2018 whereby the order passed by learned Single Judge was quashed and set aside and the respondents-State were directed to initiate the counseling of the original 77 petitioners as early as possible, however, it was held that candidature of the writ petitioners shall be considered as per non-para category teacher vacancies subject to fulfilling the conditions by these appellants-writ petitioners regarding eligibility criteria for age etc. IV. One another intra-court appeal, beign L.P.A. No. 172 of 2018, was preferred against order dated 01.02.2018 passed in W.P. (S) No. 178 of 2016 whereby the writ petitioners though had not applied under reserved category (para category) but were compelled to be treated as reserved category candidates. The learned Co- ordinate Division Bench, taking into consideration the fact that there is no rule, regulation or Government Circular or Government Policy that those candidates, who are already working as Para Teachers, must apply under the reserved category meant for teachers and further there is no such conditions attached with the public advertisement in question that those candidates who are working as Para Teachers must apply for the reserved category seats meant for Para-Teacher, quashed and set aside 78 the order passed by learned Single Judge. It has further been held that it depends upon the confidence of the candidates to apply under category or not to apply under the reserved category and there is no bar for such candidates that they cannot apply under the General Category which is meant for Non-Para Teachers. V. Thus, it appears from the order passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 that learned counsel for the petitioners confined their argument only to the legality of respondents‟ decision to stop the counseling midway. The learned Single Judge in that pretext has passed the order that there shall only one counselling. Here the learned Single Judge had not decided the issue of consideration of candidature of para-teachers under non-para teacher category, if they are otherwise eligible. As a matter of fact, said issue was decided by learned Co-ordinate Division Bench in LPA 186 of 2017 with LPA 199 of 2017, which was allowed vide order dated 11.05.2018 whereby the order passed by learned Single Judge was quashed and set 79 aside and the respondents-State were directed to initiate the counseling of the original petitioners as early as possible, however, it was held that candidature of the writ petitioners shall be considered as per non-para category teacher vacancies subject to fulfilling the conditions by these appellants-writ petitioners regarding eligibility criteria for age etc. VI. This Court on consideration of the fact that the issue of allowing para-teachers has already been decided in LPA NO. 186 of 2017 with LPA No. 199 of 2019 hence if in that circumstances the learned Single Judge has passed order for consideration of their candidature by allowing the writ petitions to participate in the counseling which according to our considering view cannot be said to suffer from error. VII. The learned Single Judge is correct and the judicial discipline warrants that if the issue has been decided by the higher Coram the same binds the Court having the lesser Coram on the principle of binding precedence. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in the case of Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Ors., (2008) 80 10 SCC 1, wherein at paragraphs-84, 86 & 88 it has been held as under: “84. In State of Bihar vs. Kalika Kuer, the Court elaborately considered the principle of per incuriam and held that the earlier judgment by a larger Bench cannot be ignored by invoking the principle of per incuriam and the only course open to the coordinate or smaller Bench is to make a request for reference to the larger Bench. 86. In Central Board of Dwaoodi Bohra Community vs. State of Maharashtra, the Constitution Bench interpreted Article 141, referred to various earlier judgments including Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs. Mumbai Shramik Sangha and Pradip Chandra Parija vs. Pramod Chandra Patnaik and held that "the law laid down in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal strength and it would be inappropriate if a Division Bench of two Judges starts overruling the decisions of Division Benches of three Judges. The Court further held that such a practice would be detrimental not only to the rule of discipline and the doctrine of binding precedents but it will also lead to inconsistency in decisions on the point of law; consistency and certainty in the development of law and its contemporary status - both would be immediate casualty (Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community case, SCC p. 682, paras 12 & 10). 88. In U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh vs. Daya Ram Saroj, the Court noted that by ignoring the earlier decision of a coordinate Bench, a Division Bench of the High Court directed that part-time tube-well operators should be treated as permanent employees with same service conditions as far as possible and observed: "26. Judicial discipline is self-discipline. It is an inbuilt mechanism in the system itself. Judicial discipline demands that when the decision of a coordinate Bench of the same High Court is brought to the notice of the Bench, it is to be respected and is binding, subject of course, to the right to take a different view or to doubt the correctness of the decision and the permissible course then open is to refer the question or the case to a larger Bench. This is the minimum discipline and 81 decorum to be maintained by judicial fraternity." 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 82 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 issued in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, which shall be not taken as precedent. 58. With the aforesaid observations and directions, 83 these intra-court appeals fail and are dismissed. 59. In consequence of dismissal of intra-court appeals, the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2049 of 2022 stands allowed. 60. Pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Alankar/- A.F.R.