Jharkhand High Court

Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 11 February, 2021

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  W.P. (S) No. 338 of 2021
1.    Sanjay Kumar, aged about 40 years, son of Nandlal Prasad, resident of
      Janakpur Mohalla, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District- Garhwa (Jharkhand)-
      822114
2.    Vikash Kumar, aged about 34 years, son of Dineshwar Verma, resident
      of Dineshwar Bhawan, Ashok Nagar Barganda, P.O. Giridih, P.S. Nagar,
      Block- Giridih, Dist.- Giridih, Jharkhand- 815301
3.    Ranjan Kumar, aged about 40 years, son of Upendra Prasad, resident
      of Rajkumar Nagar, Bhatdina, P.O. & P.S. Godda, District- Godda,
      Jharkhand-814133
4.    Vikash Chandra Rajwar, aged about 37 years, son of Robin Rajwar,
      resident of Village- Pordag, P.O. Petarwar, P.S. Petarwar, District-
      Bokaro, Jharkhand-829121
5.    Md. Wasim Raja, aged about 37 years, son of Reazuddin, resident of
      village Kerli, P.O. & P.S. Panki, District- Palamau, Jharkhand-822122
6.    Durga Prasad Mahato, aged about 36 years, S/o Tulsi Mahato, resident
      of Near Hari Mandir, Tetulmari Basti, P.O. & P.S. Baghmara, District-
      Dhanbad, Jharkhand-828121
7.    Rajdew Ram Dangi, aged about 37 years, Son of Umar Dangi, resident
      of Village- Ichak Khurd, P.O. Nawadih Damoi, P.S. Nawadih, District-
      Chatra, Jharkhand-825408                              ... Petitioners
                                   -Versus-
1.    State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of
      Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-
      Ranchi
2.    Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy,
      Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi
3.    Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms
      and Rajbhasha, Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur,
      District- Ranchi
4.    Director, Secondary Education and Literacy, Project Bhawan, P.O.
      Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi
5.    Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary, Chai
      Bagan, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District- Ranchi
6.    District Education Officer, Palamau, Samaharnalaya Campus, Block-C,
      Medininagar, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District- Palamau
7.    District Education Officer, Garhwa, Samaharnalaya Campus, Garhwa,
      P.O., P.S. & District- Garhwa
8.    District Education Officer, Chatra, V.J. Institute, Old Court Campus,
      Chatra, P.O., P.S. & District- Chatra
9.    District Education Officer, Dhanbad, Kasturba Nagar, P.O. Head Post
      Office, P.S. Dhanbad Jail, District- Dhanbad
10.   District Education Officer, Bokaro, Sector-1, Civil Court Campus Area-2,
      Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro
11.   District Education Officer, Koderma, Samaharnalaya Campus, P.O., P.S.
      & District- Koderma
12.   District Education Officer, Giridih, Samaharnalaya Campus, P.O., P.S. &
      District- Giridih
13.   District Education Officer, Godda, Samaharnalaya Campus, P.O., P.S. &
      District- Godda                                        ... Respondents
                                               -2-
                                           -----

             CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                           -----

             For the Petitioners           : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate
             For the Respondent-State      : Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I
             For the Respondent-JSSC       : Mr. Tejo Mistry, Advocate
                                           -----

03/11.02.2021. Heard Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel for the petitioners,

Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, learned counsel for the respondent-State and

Mr. Tejo Mistry, learned counsel for the respondent-Jharkhand Staff

Selection Commission.

2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view

of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising

due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any

technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been

heard on merit.

3. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for direction upon the

respondents to appoint the petitioners on the post of Trained Graduate

Teacher (TGT) in the subjects of History and Civics.

4. Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that pursuant to Advertisement No.21 of 2016, the petitioners

applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) for Districts

Palamau, Garhwa, Chatra, Dhanbad, Bokaro, Koderma, Giridih and Godda in

the subjects of History and Civics. The petitioners appeared in both the

examinations i.e. compulsory and mains examination and after successfully

qualifying in both the examinations, the petitioners were called for

counselling/document verification vide different notifications dated

04.10.2018 and 14.12.2018 published in the website of Jharkhand Staff

Selection Commission in which the roll numbers of the petitioners are also

appearing in Palamau, Garhwa, Chatra, Dhanbad, Bokaro, Koderma, Giridih

and Godda, subjects History and Civics. The petitioners had appeared in

document verification procedure/counselling in the light of aforesaid

notification for District Palamau, Garhwa, Chatra, Dhanbad, Bokaro,

Koderma, Giridih and Godda in the subjects of History and Civics and during

the said counselling, the petitioners had submitted all the relevant

documents including educational qualification and as per the demand of

JSSC, the respondent-JSSC had successfully accepted the relevant

documents without any objection from any corner.

5. Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits

that now the matter can be disposed of in the light of the judgment passed

by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Soni Kumar & Others vs.

The State of Jharkhand & Others delivered in W.P.(C) No.1387 of

2017 vide order dated 21.09.2020 particularly Para 66 which is quoted

herein below:-

"66. We also propose to make it abundantly clear that by the ad interim order dated 18.9.2019 passed by this Court in these writ applications, the selection process was never stayed by the Court in the non-scheduled districts, though, as informed to us, it had erroneously been taken by the State Government like that. There was no stay for appointments on any post in the non-scheduled districts, or for that matter there was no stay for the appointments even in the scheduled districts, rather, only the operation of the Notification No. 5938 dated 14.7.2016 was stayed by this Court. In other words, the appointments could be continued to be made even in the scheduled districts, ignoring the aforesaid notification."

6. Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel for the petitioners also submits

that the petitioners are belonging from non-scheduled districts and there is

no stay of operation and in view of the observation made in Paragraph 66

of the Full Bench judgment, the writ petition can be disposed of for

considering the case of the petitioners.

7. Mr. Tejo Mistry, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Jharkhand

Staff Selection Commission submits that the writ petition can be disposed of

only to the effect that the JSSC will examine as to whether the petitioners

are coming under the zone of consideration or not and if they are under the

zone of consideration, appropriate order will be passed.

8. In view of above facts and considering the submission of learned

counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of with direction