Jharkhand High Court
Narendra Kumar Singh Aged About 42 ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 2 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3881 of 2020
Narendra Kumar Singh aged about 42 years, son of Bihari Singh,
Resident of village - Kharika, P.O. Dhangda, P.S. Tandwa, District
Chatra ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Human
Resources Development, Government of Jharkhand, having its
office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. + P.S. - Dhurwa, Ranchi
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasa, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O.
+ P.S. - Dhurwa, District Ranchi
3. The Director of Primary Education, Human Resources
Development, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. + P.S. - Dhurwa, Ranchi
4. District Superintendent of Education, office at Clerktriate Building
Chatra, P.O. + P.S. Chatra, District - Chatra
5. District Superintendent of Education, Office at - Clerktriate
Building Hazaribagh, P.O. + P.S. - Hazaribagh, District
Hazaribagh.
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Rishi Chandan, Advocate
---
05/02.05.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"(i) For quashing of the final merit list published by the
respondent authority by which the candidates having lesser marks
than the petitioner have been short listed for selection in the post of
Inter trained Teacher Class 1 to 5, under the para teacher category
and for that counseling was held on 03-06-2019 and the name of the
petitioner, having higher marks than the said candidates have been
left out from the counseling process.
(ii) For direction to respondent authorities to publish a fresh
merit list including the name of the petitioner for participation in the
counseling for selection in the post of inter trained class 1 to 5 under
para category as petitioners have obtained higher marks from the
persons who have been selected in the final merit list published by the
respondent authority.
(iii) For direction to respondents to initiate fresh process of
counseling for selection of teachers under para category class 1 to 5
as petitioners having the eligibility criteria and there is still vacant
post.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the
pendency of this case, an order has been passed in the case of Paras
Nath Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. in W.P.S. No.2378 of
2019 with other analogous cases decided on 16.02.2022 wherein this
Court has considered the issue framed in para 13 as follows:
"Now, the sole issue before this Court is whether left-out candidates, who
have secured more marks than the last selected candidates, can be further for
counseling for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Para or Non-Para)
since they have never been called for counseling earlier."
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
submitted that as per para 18 of the judgment passed in the batch matter
in W.P.(S) No.2378 of 2019, it has been directed that the Deputy
Commissioner shall initiate the process of counselling after giving proper
notice to the petitioners by way of Press Communique, advertising the
notice in the local newspaper having the wide circulation in the
concerned Districts and also by putting the notice on the Notice Board of
the Office of concerned District Superintendent of Education and
thereafter, the entire process of counseling be completed within a period
of further four weeks.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner was never called for counseling earlier and as per para 11 of
the writ petition, less meritorious persons were called for counseling.
He submits that counseling is still going on in Chatra district.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
while opposing the prayer has submitted that the counseling in terms
of the order passed by Hon'ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No.186 of
2016, has already been completed. So far as the judgment passed by
this Court in the case of Paras Nath Mandal (supra) is concerned, he
has nothing to say. The learned counsel has also submitted that if the
counseling in still going on and if less meritorious person under the
category in which the petitioner had applied, have been called for,
then the petitioner's case can also be considered if there is no other
legal impediment. The learned counsel has also submitted that the case
of the petitioner is not covered by the order passed in L.P.A. No.186
of 2016 because the L.P.A was relating to those para teachers, who
had applied under non-para category and their candidature was not
considered.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court
finds that it is not in dispute that the aforesaid L.P.A No.186 of 2016
was in relation to those para teachers, who had applied under non-para
category.
8. However, the order passed by this Court in the case of Paras
Nath Mandal (supra) refers to the common prayer seeking direction
upon the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners in
their respective categories i.e. para and non - para category for the
district for which they had applied against the vacant seat of
intermediate trained teachers. This Court further finds that in the case
of Paras Nath Mandal (supra), a direction was issued indicating that
if the vacancies are still there, the candidates who have approached the
Court on fulfilling the requisite qualification and are eligible for
appointment in all respect having more marks than the last selected
candidate, then certainly the State is bound to consider the case as no
fresh advertisement was yet floated for the appointment of Assistant
Teachers para and non - para in which backlog vacancy can also be
added. Consequently, a direction was issued to initiate the process of
counseling for the petitioners of the said case by way of last
opportunity in terms of the directions contained in para 18 of the said
writ petition.
9. The specific case of the petitioner at para 11 of the writ petition
is that the persons, who were less meritorious than the petitioner were
called for counselling, but no specific names as such has been
provided in para 11 of the writ petition. However, the petitioner has
tried to substantiate this plea by referring to the counter-affidavit. In
absence of any specific plea in the writ petition regarding persons less
meritorious than the petitioner in the category under which the
petitioner had applied, no specific finding to that effect can be
recorded.
10. However, considering the aforesaid judgment passed by this
Court in the case of Paras Nath Mandal (supra), this writ petition is
disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation
before respondent no.4 within a period of 15 days from today by filing a
fresh representation and if the case of the petitioner is found to be
similarly situated as those of the petitioners in W.P.(S) No.2378 of 2019,
then the case of the petitioner be also considered in the light of the
observation and direction made in the said judgement passed in W.P.(S)
No.2378 of 2019 along with the concerned petitioners of W.P.(S)
No.2378 of 2019 in accordance with law and if there is no other legal
impediment. The petitioner would produce a copy of the judgement
passed in W.P.(S) No.2378 of 2019 as well as a web copy of this order
along with the representation.
If the less meritorious persons than the petitioner under category in
which the petitioner had applied, have been called for counselling and
if the counselling is still going on, then the concerned authority shall
consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order
within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the
representation.
11. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid
observations and directions.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
