Ramji Gope vs State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 149 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         W.P(S) No. 4841 of 2019
                               ------

1. Ramji Gope

2. Ram Bharos Sahu

3. Ashok Sen Suman

4. Nirmal Kumar Yadav

5. Chandan Bhuiyan

6. Mukesh ram

7. Kapildeo Saw

8. Birendra Kumar Pandey

9. Sahdeo Prajapati

10. Rajendra Prajapati

11. Pawan Kumar Arya

12. Prakash Kumar Yadav

13. Vijay Mahato

14. Jitendra Kumar Gupta

15. Pankaj Kumar Rajak

16. Santosh Kumar

17. Dilip Kumar Singh

18. Rajesh Kumar Mehta

19. Binita Kumari

20. Bangali Prasad Ram

21. Niru Kumar Rana

22. Pramod Kumar Rana

23. Bisun Kumar Gupta

24. Jageshwar Prasad Sahu

25. Naresh Kumar Yadav

26. Shivdayal Kumar Dangi

27. Angira Kumari

28. Krishna Yadav

29. Brahmdeo Yadav

30. Ishwar Yadav

31. Baleshwar Saw

32. Mahfuz Ansari'

33. Nageshwar Ravidas .... .... Petitioner(s).

Versus

1. State of Jharkhand

2. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi

3. Principal Secretary, Depart. of Personnel, Raj Bhasa & Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Ranchi

4. Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Depart. Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Ranchi

5. Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Depart. Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa , Ranchi

6. Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, JSCA Stadium Road Sector- 3, Dhurwa

7. Deputy Commissioner, Chatra

8. Deputy Superintendent Education, Chatra

9. Union of India through Secretary, Human Resources Development Depart. Govt. of India, New Delhi .... .... Respondent(s)

------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : None For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kumar No.3

11/6.01.2023 None appeared on behalf of the petitioners. Considering the nature of the prayer made in the writ application and the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P(S) No. 315 of 2016, I am of the opinion that it will be futile to keep this writ application pending.

In this writ application, the petitioners who are the Para Teachers have prayed for their regularization. The issue is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.P(S) No. 315 of 2016. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case has held that the Para Teachers are not entitled to be regularized. This case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. Thus, this case is dismissed in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench passed in W.P(S) No. 315 of 2016.

(ANANDA SEN , J) anjali/cp2