Shaheen Akhtar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 4832 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Shaheen Akhtar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 May, 2024

Author: S.N. Pathak

Bench: S.N.Pathak

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                  W.P.(S). No. 1852 of 2024
                                            ----------

     Shaheen Akhtar                                     ............        Petitioner
                                        Versus
    1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

3. The Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Simdega.

5. The District Superintendent of Education, Simdega.

6. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Gumla.

7. The District Superintendent of Education, Gumla.

8. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Khunti

9. The District Superintendent of Education, Garhwa

10.The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Daltaonganj

11.The District Superintendent of Education, Daltaonganj.

............ Respondents CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Prakash, Advocate For the Resp. : Mr. Rishabh Kaushal, AC to GP-II

----------

03/ 03.05.2024 Defects pointed-out by the Office is hereby ignored.

2. Heard the parties.

3. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to accommodate him in the counseling process to be conducted in light of order passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 2378 of 2019 and other analogous cases as well as in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2023, at the district for which she has applied, by considering the candidature of petitioner under non-para category against the vacant seats of Graduate Trained Teacher for Class- 6 to 8 and if petitioner is found eligible in all respect, then offer of appointment to that effect shall be issued in his favour as the petitioner had already applied for the vacancy in the year 2015 and candidates having lesser marks than the petitioner have been called and allowed to participate in the counselling and further the seats are still lying vacant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner 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."

5. 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."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since similar issue has already been decided by this Court, present petitioner is 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.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has no objection to the same.

8. In view of the fair submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of in terms of the order dated 16.02.2022, passed by this Court in case of in 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 case of the present petitioner is 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

petitioner is also entitled for the same benefits.

9. Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondents-authorities to verify the factual aspects/issues involved in the present writ petition 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 petitioner also in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.

10. Let it be made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case.

11. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) Kunal