Jharkhand High Court
Md. Faruque Ahmad vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 9 February, 2024
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 563 of 2024
1. Md. Faruque Ahmad
2. Md. Mojibur Rahman
3. Ajmal Shaikh
4. Md. Kamrul Hassan .. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary School Education
and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Director, Primary Education (Directorate of Education), School
Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Deputy Commissioner - Cum - Chairman, District Education
Established Committee, Ranchi
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi
5. The Deputy Commissioner - Cum - Chairman, District Education
Established Committee, East Singhbhum
6. The District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum
7. The Deputy Commissioner - Cum - Chairman, District Education
Established Committee, Dhanbad
8. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad
9. The Deputy Commissioner - Cum - Chairman, District Education
Established Committee, Chatra
10. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra
11. The Deputy Commissioner - Cum - Chairman, District Education
Established Committee, Sahebganj
12. The District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj
13. The Deputy Commissioner - Cum - Chairman, District Education
Established Committee, Giridih
14. The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih
15. The Deputy Commissioner - Cum - Chairman, District Education
Established Committee, Pakur
16. The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur
17. The Deputy Commissioner - Cum - Chairman, District Education
Established Committee, Jamtara
18. The District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara
19. The Deputy Commissioner - Cum - Chairman, District Education
Established Committee, Bokaro
20. The District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro
21. The Deputy Commissioner - Cum - Chairman, District Education
Established Committee, Dumka
22. The District Superintendent of Education, Dumka
23. The Deputy Commissioner - Cum - Chairman, District Education
Established Committee, Seraikela
24. The District Superintendent of Education, Seraikela
... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Pawan, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Shivam Singh, A.C. to S.C-II
---------
02/Dated: 09.02.2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:
"i. For a direction upon the respondents to accommodate the petitioners in the
counselling process to be conducted for the post of Assistant Teacher in
light of the judgment/order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No.
2378 of 2019 and other analogous cases upheld in L.P.A. no. 203 of 2022
and other analogous matters, in respective districts for which they have
applied.
ii. For a further direction upon respondents to consider the candidature of the
petitioners under para and Non-Para categories for remaining vacancies of
Inter Trained Teachers (Class I-V as well as Class- VI- VIII), and if the
petitioners found eligible, they may be suitably appointed as have already
applied against the vacancies in different districts in the year 2015 and the
candidates having lesser marks than the petitioners have been called and
allowed to participate in the counselling.
And/or
Further prays for issuance of any other appropriate writ(s), order(s),
direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in view of the fact
and circumstances of the case for proper doing conscientious Justice to the
petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this case is covered
now by the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 510
of 2023 and analogous cases vide order dated 31.01.2024. Para 33 of the said
order is quoted herein below:-
"33. Since it was the specific case of the writ petitioners that they were never
called for counseling and that candidates securing less marks than the writ
petitioners were called for counseling and were selected, it would be important to
issue the following clarifications / directions in consonance with the specific stand
of the various writ petitioners in the batch of cases involved in the impugned order
though this Court is not inclined to differ with the findings and directions issued
vide order dated 15.09.2023 passed in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022:-
(a) Only those candidates are to be called for counseling who have
never been called for counseling earlier in one or the other district
irrespective of the fact as to whether they had participated in the counseling
or not.
(b) To enable the candidate to participate in the fresh counseling the
concerned respondent shall verify whether a candidate below in the merit
list in the concerned district has been ultimately selected irrespective of the
fact as to whether such a candidate had joined or not. If that be so, then
only such candidate be permitted to appear in the fresh counseling.
(c) There should be one counseling to be conducted simultaneously in
all the districts as was directed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 and
other analogous cases which has been upheld in L.P.A. No. 168 of 2017."
4. In view of the submissions of the parties, the present writ petition is
disposed of directing the respondents to act as per the mandate of the order dated
31.01.2024 passed in L.P.A. No. 510 of 2023 and analogous cases.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
VK
Uploaded
