Jharkhand High Court
Kalpana Rath vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No.45 of 2021
------
Kalpana Rath, aged about 49 years, Daughter of Sri Lashmi Kant Rath,
Resident of Village Tungri, Block Sadar Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar
Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of School & Literacy, Government of
Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa,
P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi
3. The Director (Primary), Department of School & Literacy, Government of
Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa,
P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi
4. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education
Establishment Committee, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.
Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum
5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa,
P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum
6. The District Superintendent of Education, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa,
P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum
7. The Assistant Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Government of
Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, District Ranchi
8. The Area Education Officer, Jagarnathpur, P.O. & P.S. Jagarnathpur,
District West Singhbhum
9. The Block Extension Education Officer, Jagarnathpur, P.O. & P.S.
Jagarnathpur, District West Singhbhum
10. The Block Extension Education Officer, Sadar Chaibasa, , P.O. & P.S.
Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum.... .... .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner : Mr. M.M. Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Vijayant Verma, A.C. to A.A.G. IV
------
03/19.02.2021 Heard Mr. M.M. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Vijayant Verma, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
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.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the
respondent to provide notional seniority and shifting of date of appointment
to the date of appointment of several other successful candidates including
Harendra Kumar Ghosh and Kishore Kumar Tiwary in pursuant to the order
of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No.1352 of 2007 and subsequent order of the
Division Bench affirmed in L.P.A. No.446 of 2012.
Mr. M.M. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of judgment enclosed in
this writ petition. He submits that in those cases, order of this Court has
already been complied with and case of the petitioner is fully covered in
view of those judgments.
Mr. Vijayant Verma, learned counsel for the respondent-State
submits that the petitioner may file fresh representation along with the
judgments and the competent authority will consider the case of the
petitioner.
In view of above submission and considering the judgment of
Division Bench of this Court, the writ petition is being disposed of directing
the petitioner to approach respondent no.6 by way of filing fresh
representation along with all the credentials including the judgment on
which the petitioner is relying. If such representation is filed within the
aforesaid period, the respondent no.6 will take a decision in accordance with
Rules, Regulations and Guidelines and considering the judgment of Division
Bench of this Court and will pass reasoned order within a period of eight
weeks thereafter.
With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is
disposed of. It is needless to say that if the decision is taken in favour of the
petitioner, the benefit of same shall be provided to the petitioner within a
period of eight weeks further thereafter.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Anit
