Md. Mojibur Rahman vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 1519 Jhar

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1519 Jhar
Judgement Date : 15 February, 2024

Jharkhand High Court

Md. Mojibur Rahman vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 February, 2024

Author: Rajesh Kumar

Bench: Rajesh Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            W.P. (S) No. 540 of 2024
1.   Md. Mojibur Rahman
2.   Amit Dey
3.   Zulfaquar Alam Ansari
4.   Bappaditya Ghosh
5.   Manoj Kumar Khan
6.   Montu Goswami
7.   Pijush Mandal
8.   Prabir Kumar Laha
9.   Shrimant Kumar Mandal
10.  Bama Pada Mandal
11.  Ram Prakash Yadav
12.  Kashinath Pandit
13.  Ranjit Kumar Paul
14.  Lakshman Chandra Kumbhakar
                                      ...    ...    ...    Petitioners
                                Versus
1.   The State of Jharkhand
2.   The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3.   The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Raj Bhasa &
     Administrative Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4.   The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department,
     Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
5.   The Director, Primary Education (Directorate of Education), School
     Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
6.   The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum
7.   The District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum
8.   The Deputy Commissioner, Saraikela-Kharsawan
9.   The District Superintendent of Education, Koderma, Saraikela-Kharsawan
10.  The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
11.  The District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi
12.  The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka
13.  The District Superintendent of Education, Dumka
14.  The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara
15.  The District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara
16.  The Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj
17.  The District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj
18.  The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur
19.  The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur
20.  The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar
21.  The District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar
22.  The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad
23.  The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad
24.  The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro
25.  The District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro
26.  The Deputy Commissioner, Khunti
27.  The District Superintendent of Education, Khunti
28.  The Deputy Commissioner, Godda
29.  The District Superintendent of Education, Godda
30.  The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh
31.  The District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh
32.  The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma
33.  The District Superintendent of Education, Koderma
                                   -2-
34.    The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh
35.    The District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh
36.    The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar
37.    The District Superintendent of Education, Latehar
38.    The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra
39.    The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra
40.    The Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga
41.    The District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga
                                            ...         ...   Respondents
                                  ---------

CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
                                  ---------

For the Petitioners: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Apurva, Advocate For the State: Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr. S.C.-III

---------

02/Dated: 15.02.2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:

"a. For issuance of appropriate direction upon the respondent authorities to accommodate the petitioners (all TET qualified for Class I to V and VI to VIII or both) in the counselling process to be conducted for the post of Assistant Teachers in respective districts in the light of the judgment dated 16.02.2022 passed in W.P.(S) no. 2378 of 2019 [Paras Nath Mandal vrs. The State of Jharkhand] and other analogous cases which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 15.09.2023 passed in LPA no. 203 of 2022 and if the petitioner are found eligible, they may be called for counselling, however, the candidates who being Para Teachers applied under non- Para category and obtained lesser marks than the petitioners, have been called and allowed to participate in the counselling held on 03.06.2019, pursuant to the judgment dated 11.05.2018 passed in LPA no. 186 of 2017 with LPA no. 199 of 2017.

b. To hold and declare that the petitioners who had applied in para category are also entitled for the appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers despite they applied only in para- category in as much as, the petitioners also fulfils all the criteria laid down under the Jharkhand Primary School Teachers Appointment Rules 2012 (as amended upto date) but shockingly those para-teachers having applied in non-para category having appointed/is going to be appointed despite securing lesser marks then those para teachers who strictly as per rules/advertisement confined their candidature in para category.

And/Or Pass such other order/orders as your lordships may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

3. Learned counsel for the parties 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 above submissions, 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