Jharkhand High Court
Sachindra Nath Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 May, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2098 of 2024
1. Sachindra Nath Mishra
2. Ajit Kumar
3. Rajendra Prasad Yadav
4. Uma Shankar Yadav
5. Harihar Mahto
6. Hemkant Yadav ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar
4. Deputy Commissioner, Giridih
5. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh
6. Deputy Commissioner, Chatra
7. Deputy Commissioner, Koderma
8. Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro
9. Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad
10. Deputy Commissioner, Godda
11. Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara
12. Deputy Commissioner, Pakur
13. Deputy Commissioner, Dumka
14. Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj
15. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh
16. District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar
17. District Superintendent of Education, Giridih
18. District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh
19. District Superintendent of Education, Chatra
20. District Superintendent of Education, Koderma
21. District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro
22. District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad
23. District Superintendent of Education, Godda
24. District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara
25. District Superintendent of Education, Pakur
26. District Superintendent of Education, Dumka
27. District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj
28. District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh
29. Jharkhand Education Project Council through its Director, Ranchi
... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate
Mr. Niranjan Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, A.C. to G.A-IV
For Respondent No.29 : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
-----
03/01.05.2024 At the outset, Mr. K.S. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that Jharkhand Education Project Council is required to be arrayed
as party in this writ petition.
2. Let him do so.
3. Learned counsel Mr. Krishna Murari waives notice on behalf of the
respondent-Jharkhand Education Project Council.
4. Heard Mr. K.S. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Vishal
Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Krishna Murari, learned
counsel for respondent no.29.
5. The prayer is made in this writ petition for direction to the
respondents to allow the petitioners to participate in counselling process to
be conducted for the post of Assistant Teacher in respective districts under
para categories for Class I-V as well as Class VI-VIII.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in identical situation,
batch of writ petitions was decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.(S) No.189 of 2024 and analogous cases and vide judgment dated
08.02.2024, the learned Single Judge has been pleased to allow the prayer
with regard to counselling of the petitioners of those cases. He also submits
that the similar type of order was challenged before the Division Bench of
this Court in L.P.A. No.510 of 2023 and analogous cases, which were
disposed of vide judgment dated 31.01.2024 and the judgment passed by
the learned Single Judge was affirmed and in paragraph 33 of the said
judgment, further directions have been given.
7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the case of the petitioners
is covered in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in the said L.P.As.
8. Learned counsel for respondent no.29 submits that the petitioners are
working under the Jharkhand Education Project Council and if the State
Government allowed them to appear or select, the respondent-
Jharkhand Education Project Council has got no objection.
9. Paragraph 33 of the judgment passed in L.P.A. No.510 of 2023 and
analogous cases reads as under:
"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."
10. In view of the above and considering that the case of the petitioners
is covered in light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in said L.P.As., this petition is being disposed of in terms of the
judgment passed in L.P.A. No.510 of 2023 and analogous cases.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
