Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Kumar Khariya vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 12 June, 2024
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N.Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 2534 of 2024
----------
1.Vijay Kumar Khariya
2.Shanti Toppo
3.Nilima Baxla ............ Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ............ Respondents
With
W.P.(S). No. 3022 of 2024
1.Ravindra Ohdar
2.Hari Prasad Mahato
3.Brajesh Kumar Singh
4.Manoj Kumar Mondal
5.Mahesh Prasad Mandal
6.jaynandan Prasad Verma
7.Suman Kumar Mahto ............ Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ............ Respondents
With
W.P.(S). No. 2695 of 2024
Suman Kumar Ray ............ Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ............ Respondents
With
1.Vivek Vibhuti
2.Vikas Kumar ............ Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ............ Respondents
With
1.Nirmala Kumari
2.Rajesh Ranjan ............ Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ............ Respondents
With
Neetu Bharti ............ Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ............ Respondents
With
1.Indu Kerketta
2.Ram Kishun Saw
3.Md. Ayub Khan
4.Pankaj Kumar Keshri
5.Sanjeet Kumar ............ Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ............ Respondents
With
1.Laxmi Kumari
2.Subhash Pratik
3.Bibhasha Murmu
4.Sanjiv Kumar Soren
5.Pradeep Kumar Soren ............ Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ............ Respondents
With
1.Roshan Ram
2.Santoshi Kujur
3.Bhupeseh Kashyap
4.Akhilesh Kumar Pandey ............ Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ............ Respondents
With
1.Binay Kumar Jha
2.Mukesh Patanwar
3.Shyama Prasad Ojha ............ Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ............ Respondents
With
1.Mister Jinno
2.Prasant Kumar Bhakat
3.Zahid Fazal
4.Md. Aslam Ansari
5.Md. Imran Ansari
6.Tapash Rajak ............ Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ............ Respondents
With
1.Arshi Nigar
2.Pratima Tigga
3.Jyoti Madhuri Toppo
4.Anjum Praween ............ Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ............ Respondents
With
1.Sajan Kumar
2.Anil Dayal
3.Md. Sanaul Haque
4.Pragya Nand Dubey
5.Arvind Kumar Mishra
6.Nand Kishore Turi
7.Ambika Yadav ............ Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ............ Respondents
With
1.Surendra Vishwakarma
2.Satish Kumar ............ Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ............ Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioners : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Bhushan, Advocate
Mr. A. K. Choudhary, Advocate
Mr. Lalit Kr. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ashit Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Mehta, Advocate
Mrs. Sarita Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate
Ms. Sarita Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Tapan Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Anupama, Advocate
Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. J. F. Toppo, GA-V
Mr. Nail Abhijit Toppo, AC to GA-V
Mr. Achyut Keshav, AAG-V
Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V
Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to GA-III
Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, GA.-I
Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr. SC-I
Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, AC to SC-III
Mr. Niraj Kumar Mishra, AC to GP-IV
Mr. Krishna Kumar Bhatt, AC to SC-I
Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III
Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. SC-I
----------
03/ 12.06.2024 Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(S) No.2534 of 2024 shall
remove the defect(s) in course of day.
Defect(s) as pointed-out by the office in W.P.(S) No.3022 of 2024 is
ignored for the present.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to make suitable
correction in course of day in the name of petitioner No.6.
2. Since, the issues involved in all these writ petitions are similar and
identical and as such they have been tagged together and are being
disposed of by this common order.
3. Heard the parties.
4. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for a
direction upon the respondents to allow them to participate in the
counselling process in the respective districts for which they have applied
for consideration of their candidatures under Para/ Non-Para categories
for remaining vacancies of Intermediate /Graduate Trained Teachers for
Classes 1 to 5 / 6 to 8 and if the petitioners are found eligible, they may
be suitably appointed as they 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.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the similar
issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S). No. 2378 of
2019 (Paras Nath Mandal Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and
other analogous cases and this Court after hearing the parties vide its
judgment delivered on 16.02.2022, allowed the said writ petitions with
the following directions:
"18. .................. I hereby direct the respondents to
initiate process of counseling for the present petitioners
by way of last opportunity, since they have obtained more
marks than the last selected candidates in the merit list.
The petitioners shall approach the Deputy Commissioners
of the concerned Districts, as early as possible,
preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the Deputy
Commissioner shall initiate the process of counseling
after giving proper notice to the petitioners by way of
Press Communique, advertising the notice in the local
newspaper having the wide circulation in the concerned
Districts and also by putting the notice on the Notice
Board of the Office of concerned District Superintendent
of Education and thereafter, the entire process of
counseling be completed within a period of further four
weeks subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria and also
if the present petitioners have secured more marks than
the last selected candidates."
6. Thereafter, the respondent-State challenged the said order before the
Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in LPA No. 203 of 2022 and the
Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court dismissed the LPA preferred by the
respondent-State.
The relevant para of the said judgment reads as under:
"57. This Court, on entirety of facts and circumstances, is of
the view that the order passed by learned Single Judge
needs no interference by this Court and the direction so
passed by learned Single Judge needs no interference by
this Court and is required to be complied with at an earliest
as the vacancies is of the year 2015 and it must be put to
logical end without snatching right of candidates, if they
are otherwise eligible. Therefore, the appellants-State are
hereby directed to:
I. Initiate the process of counseling forthwith for the present
petitioners by way of last opportunity as it is alleged they
have obtained more marks than the last selected candidates
in the merit list in the respective districts.
II. The petitioners shall approach the Deputy Commissioners
of the concerned Districts, as early as possible, preferably,
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
III. However, in the meantime, the Deputy Commissioner of
the concerned district shall give proper notice to the
petitioners by way of Press Communique, advertising the
notice in the local newspaper having the wide circulation in
the concerned Districts and also by putting the notice on
the Notice Board of the Office of concerned District
Superintendent of Education.
IV. This Court hopes and trusts that the entire process of
counseling will be completed within a period of further
eight weeks subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria and
also if the present petitioners have secured more marks than
the last selected candidates.
V. It is made clear that the entire process of selection shall be
made strictly in accordance with relevant rules/regulations
and judicial pronouncements, as mentioned above, within a
period of four months from the date of receipt/production of
copy of this order.
VI. Let it be made clear that no further counselling shall be held
for any reasons whatsoever as the advertisement for
appointment of these teachers are of 2015 and the aforesaid
directions have been issued in peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, which shall be not taken as
precedent."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that since similar
issue has already been decided by this Court, present petitioners are also
entitled for the similar benefits, what has been extended to the petitioners
of W.P.(S). No. 2378 of 2019 (Paras Nath Mandal Vs. the State of
Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has no objection to the same.
9. In view of the fair submissions made by the learned Counsel for the
parties, these writ petitions are being disposed of in terms of the order
dated 16.02.2022, passed by this Court in case of W.P.(S). No. 2378 of
2019 (Paras Nath Mandal Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and
other analogous cases as well as LPA No. 203 of 2022 and if the cases
of the present petitioners are found to be same and similar to the cases of
the petitioners in W.P.(S). No. 2378 of 2019 (Paras Nath Mandal Vs.
the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases, the present
petitioners are also entitled for the same benefits.
10. Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondents-authorities to verify the
factual aspects/issues involved in the present writ petitions vis. a vis.
factual aspects/issues involved in W.P.(S). No. 2378 of 2019 (Paras
Nath Mandal Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other
analogous cases, and if the facts/issues involved in the present writ
petition is found to be similar to the aforementioned writ petition, the
same benefits may be extended to the present petitioners also in
accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt/ production of a copy of this order.
11. Let it be made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of
the cases.
12. With these observations and directions, all these writ petitions stand
disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
Rohit/-
