Jharkhand High Court
Prabhat Kumar Pandit vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 19 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 565 of 2019
------
1. Prabhat Kumar Pandit, aged about 39 years, son of Lalo Pandit,
resident of village Sarifatand, P.O. and P.S. Manikbagh, District-Giridih
2. Baldeo Yadav, aged about 35 years, son of Lootan Yadav, resident of
village Khajmunda, P.O. and P.S. Kisago, District-Giridih
.... .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Development Department, Ranchi
2. The Director, Directorate of Primary Education, Human Resources
Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih
6. The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih
.... .... .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner No. 1 : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, Advocate
------
06/19.01.2021 Heard Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner No. 1
and Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, 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.
Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 submits
that the grievance of the petitioner no. 1 has been redressed. He submits
that the petitioner no. 2 has taken no objection certificate from him
This aspect of the matter has been recorded in order dated
16.12.2020 and with a view provide one more opportunity to the learned
counsel for the petitioner no. 2, the matter was adjourned for today.
It appears that the name of the counsel for the petitioner no. 2 is
reflecting in the cause list.
Today, on repeated calls, nobody appeared on behalf of the
petitioner no. 2.
The grievance of the petitioner no. 1 has been redressed as
disclosed in supplementary-affidavit by which the appointment letter of the
petitioner no. 1 has been brought on record but it is not clear as to why the
case of petitioner no. 2 has not been considered in the same line as has
been done in the case of petitioner no. 1.
This writ petition is dismissed as infructuous with regard to
petitioner no. 1.
This writ petition is being disposed of with regard to petitioner no.
2 with direction to the respondents to take decision in the light of judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 186 of
2017 and analogous cases
Petitioner no. 2 is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority
by way of filing representation who will disclose the reason as to why the
case of the petitioner no. 2 has not been considered in the same line as of
petitioner no. 1.
This writ petition stands disposed. Pending I.A., if any, stands
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/-
