Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 January, 2024
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 850 of 2018
---
Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal
Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Principal Secretary, Education and Literacy
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Education and Literacy
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Santhal
Pargana Division, Dumka
5. The District Education Officer, Godda . ...Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
--
For the Petitioner : M/s. Sanjay Kumar Pandey,
Sanjit Kumar, Advocates
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, G.A.-IV
Mr. Anuj Burman, A.C to G.A.-IV
--
05/09.01.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing
and setting aside the report of three men committee constituted in the light of
the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, by which the recognition of the service of
the petitioner has been refused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the issue involved
in this writ application is under consideration before learned Division Bench of
this Court in batch of appeals, which has been preferred by the State of
Jharkhand against the respective orders passed in favour of the petitioner and
the lead case is L.P.A. No. 138 of 2019 and in the said L.P.A. 138 of 2019 and
analogous cases, arguments have been concluded and the judgment has been
reserved vide order dated 11th December, 2023.
Learned counsel lastly submits that the instant application may be
disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner that if the order passed in the
batch of appeals will be in favour of the petitioner, he will approach the
concerned respondent along with this order and order of L.P.A and his case will
be governed by the order passed in L.P.A. No. 138 of 2019 and analogous
cases.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents though opposed the prayer of
petitioner for regularization; however he fairly admits that the main issue
involved in this case is sub judice before the Division Bench in the case cited
by the petitioner and the case may be disposed of as the case of the petitioner
will be governed by the judgment which will be rendered in L.P.A. No. 138 of
2019 and analogous cases provided the facts will be similar.
5. Having regard to the prayer made in the instant writ application and the
submissions made by learned counsel for rival parties, the instant application is
hereby disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner that if the order passed in
L.P.A. No. 138 of 2019 and analogous cases would cover his case, then he
would file representation before the respondent no. 3 along with copy of order
of L.P.A. No. 138 of 2019 and analogous cases and other necessary documents
in respect of his claim.
If any such representation would be filed before the concerned
respondent, he will look into the matter and dispose of the same, in accordance
with Rules and Regulation, especially the order passed in L.P.A. No. 138 of
2019 and analogous cases, which at present is pending before the Division
Bench of this Court.
6. Consequently, the instant writ application stands disposed of. It goes
without saying that any consequential benefits which may arise pursuant to
passing of the order in favour of the petitioner, the same will be extended to
him within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of representation.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
jk
