Jharkhand High Court
Mina Kumari And Others vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 5 August, 2024
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 582 of 2023
---------
Mina Kumari and Others ..... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ..... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 6775 of 2018
With
W.P. (S) No. 1733 of 2020
With
W.P. (S) No. 4618 of 2021
With
W.P. (S) No. 4619 of 2021
With
W.P. (S) No. 4883 of 2021
With
W.P. (S) No. 5710 of 2022
With
W.P. (S) No. 5776 of 2022
With
W.P. (S) No. 5777 of 2022
With
W.P. (S) No. 111 of 2023
With
W.P. (S) No. 148 of 2023
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
W.P(S) No. 5307of 2023
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
with
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
With
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Shekhar Prasad Gupta, Adv
Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, Adv
Mr. Abdullah Umar, Adv.
Mr. Gauraw Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Syed Hozaita Arsh, Advocate
Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, Advocate
Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, Advocate
Ms. Shilpi, Advocate
Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Manoj Kr. No. 4, Advocate
Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate
Mr. Amritansh Vats, Adv
For the JSSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
: Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Divya, AC to SC III
: Mr. Shivam Anand Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Anish Kr. Mishra, AC to Sr. S.C. I
: Mr. Luv Kumar Tiwary, AC to AAG V
: Mr. Anshuman Kumar, AC to SC
(L&C) II
: Mr. Uttam Kumar Das, AC to GP 6
Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, AC to AAG I-A
Mrs. Pinky Tiwary, AC to AG
: Mr. Rahul Saboo, Advocate
: Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, AC to GP II
: Mr. Raunak Sahay, Advocate
: Ms. Shilpi, AC to SC (Mines) II
: Mr. Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to GP I
Mr. Devesh Krishna, Advocate
: Mr. Faizal Allam, Advocate
: Mr. Anuj Kumar Trivedi, Advocate
: Mr. Rohit Kumar Gupta, Advocate
: Mr. Nawal Kishor Pandey, Advocate
: Mr. Uttam Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate
---------
11/Dated: 5
th
August, 2024
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. All these writ applications have been preferred by
the respective petitioners praying for a direction upon the
respondent-Authorities to consider the respective case of
these petitioners as they have scored higher marks in
qualifying examination held by Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission.
The controversy involved in all these writ
applications travelled up till Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Satyajit Kumar & Ors. with analogous cases.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case vide its order
dated 02.08.2022 has held as under (the relevant portion
of the aforesaid order is quoted hereinbelow):-
"28. ........................ However, at the same time, the
directions issued by the High Court in the impugned
judgment and order while setting aside all the
appointments made pursuant to the Notification/Order
dated 14.07.2016 and Advertisement No 21 of 2016 dated
28.12.2016 as modified on 04.12.2017 and to go in for
fresh/de novo recruitment process for the Scheduled
Areas/Districts is hereby modified. It is now directed that
instead of fresh/de novo recruitment process by setting
aside the appointments already made in the Scheduled
Districts/Areas, the State shall revise the merit list based
on the already published cut off obtained by the last
selected candidates in each TGT subject against the
respective categories with respect to entire State and
respective candidates belonging to the non- Scheduled
Areas and Scheduled Areas (Districts) shall be adjusted
accordingly on the basis of individual merit of the
candidates. The present directions are issued considering
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and more
particularly considering the fact that there are already
vacant posts of teachers in the State (in both Scheduled
and non-Scheduled Area). We are of the view that if the
appointments already made are set aside and fresh de
novo recruitment process for such posts is initiated, a
number of schools in the Scheduled Areas shall be without
any teacher which may ultimately affect larger public
interest and education of concerned children in the
Scheduled Areas.
Present direction is issued in exercise of powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India in the larger public
interest of Scheduled Areas/Districts....................."
3. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further clarified its
previous order in Contempt Petition (C) No.612 of 2022 in
Civil Appeal No. 4044 of 2022 and gave following
directions:-
"..........We pass further following order in furtherance of
our earlier judgment and order dated 02.08.2022 as well
as subsequent order dated 02.12.2022, as under:-
1.that the State shall prepare merit list state-wise
pursuant to the applications already invited:
2. that the candidates who already applied for scheduled
area and they were not offered appointments in the
scheduled area in view of earlier notification which has
been struck down, they may be adjusted as per the earlier
judgment and order dated 02.08.2022;
3. thereafter, the appointment to be made with respect to
425 candidates who were the original writ petitioners
before the High Court as well as in whose favour
subsequently some orders are passed by the High Court:
4. that thereafter the remaining vacant posts meant for
direct recruitment (75%) shall be filled in absolutely on the
basis of merit as per the state wise merit list and subject
wise and after following due procedure as required,
namely counseling etc.;.
5. thereafter, so far as the posts remain vacant meant for
promotion (25%) are concerned, the same may be filled in
by operating the State wise merit list in accordance with
law. Meaning thereby, if any candidate for the promotional
quota is not available, in that case the remaining
vacancies be filled in according to proviso to Rule 9 of the
Rules, 2015.
However, it is made clear that the merit list be
operated and the appointments be made restricted to the
total vacancies advertised/notified. 17,786 posts only.
It is also made clear that High Court shall not
pass any contrary order with respect to the recruitment in
question. ..............."
4. After much deliberation with respect to
implementation of the Hon'ble Apex Court order, this
Court is of the view that the entire controversy with
regard to consideration will be resolved by publishing the
State wise merit list on the concerned website of the
respondent-JSSC.
5. Mr. Piprawall, learned counsel representing the
Respondent-JSSC fairly submits that since the software
which is already available with the JSSC is not up to the
mark and they will require about 10 days upgrading its
software and uploading the said State wise merit list.
6. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners do
not have any serious objection.
7. Accordingly, this court directs that the respondent-
JSSC shall publish/upload the State-wise merit list
strictly in the compliance to the order passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court which has been referred to
hereinabove within a period of 2 weeks from today.
All the individual petitioners are directed to see the
website after publication of the State wise merit list in
each subject and they will verify their own result and
come prepared on the next date of hearing, if at all, their
cases are required to be considered.
8. It goes without saying that the above State-wise
merit list which is to be uploaded on website is with
respect to those subjects for which results are already
published and appointments are going on and it is not for
those subjects where the result is not at all published
and the process is underway.
9. In view of the aforesaid direction, list all these
cases on 05.09.2024.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
