Jharkhand High Court
Ajay Kumar Kushwaha vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 26 October, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1936 of 2021
1. Ajay Kumar Kushwaha
2. Pradeep Prasad Kushwaha
3. Shakti Prasad Kushwaha
4. Munindra Prasad Sharma
5. Vijay Kumar Rana
6. Upendra Thakur
7. Purendra Kumar
8. Pintu Ravidas
9. Khirodhar Thakur
10. Manoj Kumar Roy
11. Laxman Mahto
12. Dikesh Kumar Mahato
13. Birednra Kumar Rawani
14. Raju Kumar
15. Kaushal Kumar
16. Tarapado Mahto
17. Sanjay Kumar Mahto
18. Pradeep Kumr Mahto
19. Ajit Kumar Mahto
20. Dhananjay Kumar Mahto
21. Binod Kumar Gowswami
22. Md. Fakhruddin Ansari
23. Bihari Kanisth
24. Rajesh Kumar Rana
25. Ram Mohan Prasad Sah
26. Pintu Mishra
27. Ganesh Kumar Mandal
28. Himanshu Shekhar Bhandari
29. Chinmoy Kabiraj
30. Arun Kumar Mondal
31. Sukumar Mondal ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, School Education and
Literacy Department, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih
3. The Superintendent of Education, Giridih
2
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag
5. The Superintendent of Education, Hazarbag
6. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad
7. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad
8. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro
9. The District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro
10. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma
11. The District Superintendent of Edcuation, Koderma
12. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka
13. The District Superintendent of Education, Dumka
14. The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara
15. The District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara
... .. Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK
-----
For Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate
For Respondent-State Ms. Varsha Ramesisaria, AC to GP-V
---
06/ 26.10.2021 The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for a
direction upon the resondents to consider the case of the petitioners for
appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Non-Para Category in view of the
fact that the candidates, who had secured less marks than the petitioners, have
been appointed as Assistant Teacher and also in view of the judgment dated
11.05.2018 passed in LPA No. 186 of 2017 with LPA No. 199 of 2017.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
suffice it would be if the present writ petition be treated as a representation of the
petitioners and a direction is given to the respondents to pass a reasoned order on
the representation of the petitioners, in accordance with law, within stipulated time.
Per contra, no counter-affidavit has been filed. However, learned
counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents does not object to the submission
made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties, let the present writ petition be treated as a representation of the petitioners.
Further, the petitioners are directed to approach the respondents with a copy of this
writ petition and a copy of this order and with any other document on which they
are relying upon, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. On receipt of the same, the respondents are directed to consider the
case of the petitioners and pass a speaking order assigning valid and concrete
reason for consideration /non-consideration of the case of the petitioners, in
accordance with law with a copy to the petitioners, within a period of two weeks
thereafter.
Needless to say that if the decision is taken in favour of the petitioners,
offer of appointment be issued in their favour, within the aforesaid period.
With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
/punit/
