Mohan Sahu vs State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 384 Jhar

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            W.P. (S) No.4581 of 2019
                                     ------

Mohan Sahu, aged 40 years, son of Kolha Sahu, resident of Village Napokalan, P.O. Gosain Balia, P.S. Barkagaon, District Hazaribagh .... .... .... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi

2. Director, Primary Education, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O., P.S. & District Dumka

4. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District Dhanbad

5. The District Superintendent of Education, Dukma, having its office at 1st Floor, Zila Parishad Bhawan, P.S. Dumka Town, P.O. & District Dumka

6. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad, having its office at Joint Building, Ground Floor, P.O., P.S. & District Dhanbad .... .... .... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, A.C. to S.C. I

------

04/27.01.2021 Heard Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, 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 commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Inter Trained Teacher (Assistant Teacher, Class I to V) under Non-Para Category for the Districts Dhanbad and Dumka. Further prayer is for direction upon all the District Superintendent of Education not to consider those candidates who has done his Intermediate course as regular student.

Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied for two districts i.e. Dhanbad and Dumka under Non-Para category pursuant to Advertisement No.10 of 2015 and Advertisement No.01 & 06 of 2015 respectively. He further submits that pursuant to aforesaid Advertisements, the petitioner being eligible and having all the requisite qualification has applied for the post of Assistant Teacher. The authority concerned has not issued the appointment letter from any of the

districts, even though the petitioner's name was mentioned in the merit list of both districts. He further submits that the candidates, who were also Para Teachers, but applied under non-para category for the post of Assistant Teacher, have been appointed, but later on they were ousted from service by passing the order of termination by the appointing authority. He further submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. Nos. 175 of 2017, 186 of 2017 and 199 of 2017.

Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, learned counsel for the respondent-State vehemently opposed the writ petition and submits that so far as the aforesaid L.P.As. are concerned i.e. with regard to the persons who were party in those L.P.As. and it was one time exercise. It is not open for the petitioner to come before this Court and obtain such order. The State is having difficulty in considering such matter.

At this stage, Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that identical matters have been disposed of by this Court for consideration of the case of the petitioner of those cases. He also submits that in paragraph 20 of the writ petition, the representations of the petitioner are already there.

In view of the above facts and considering the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petitioner is directed to approach the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad by way of filing a fresh representation along with the order passed in L.P.A. Nos. 175 of 2017, 186 of 2017 and 199 of 2017 within a period of three weeks from today. If such representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the District Superintendents of Education, Dhanbad and Dumka shall consider the case of the petitioner in light of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. Nos. 175 of 2017, 186 of 2017 and 199 of 2017 and he will also examine whether the order passed in the aforesaid L.P.As. is applicable to the facts and circumstance of the present case or not. The District Superintendents of Education, Dhanbad will pass reasoned order within a period of eight weeks after receipt of such representation.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Anit