Jharkhand High Court
Diwakar Prasad Mahto vs (1) The State Of Jharkhand on 11 September, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:28089
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.7630 of 2017
-------
Diwakar Prasad Mahto, S/o Sri Lakhan Mahto R/o +
village. Koeripara, P.O. + P.S. Barharwa, Dist.-Sahibganj,
Jharkhand. ...... Petitioner
Versus
(1) The State Of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi Project Bhawan
Dhurwa, P.O. + P.S. Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi.
(2) The Director Secondary Education, H.R.D.
Government of Jharkhand Ranchi, Project Bhawan
Dhurwa, P.O. + P.S. Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi.
(3) The Regional Director of Education, Santhalpragana
Division Dumka, P.O & P.S. Dumka, Dist.- Dumka.
(4) The Deputy Commissioner Sahibganj, P.O. + P.S.
Sahibganj. & Dist.
(5) The District Education Officer Sahibganj, P.O. + P.S.
& Dist. Sahibganj. .....Respondent
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Din Dayal Saha, Adv.
For the Res. State : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, G.A.I
-------
CAV On:- 09.09.2025 Pronounced on:- 11/09/2025
The instant writ petition has been preferred by
the petitioner seeking reinstatement/reappointment in
service along with all consequential benefits on the
ground that his termination was arbitrary and
discriminatory, and also violating the principles of
natural justice. He further seeks quashing of Memo Nos.
3773-3880 dated 27.07.1993 and 1398/P dated
07.12.1993.
2. It appears from records that the petitioner was
appointed on 13.11.1987 as peon in the District-
2025:JHHC:28089
Sahibganj on the vacant sanctioned post by
recommendation of application by Headmistress with
consent of the D.C. Sahibganj, Thereafter, the District
Education Officer Sahibganj issued his appointment
letter vide memo no.3528-31 dated 13.11.1987.
Subsequently, the District Education Officer
Sahibganj terminated the Petitioner along with 30 other
assistants/peons vide office order contained in memo
no. 3773-3880 dated 27.07.1993. Thereafter, the
Director of Education Bihar, Patna by his order
contained in memo no. 1398/Patna dated 07.12.1993
cancelled the appointment.
3. The order of termination dated 27.07.1993 was
challenged by filing C.W.J.C no. 894/94 which was
ultimately withdrawn on 1995 itself to seek remedy with
the appropriate authorities.
On 05.01.2000, the petitioner and others
challenged the said order of the termination by filing
CWJC no. 7106 of 98 and this Court disposed with
direction on 05.01.2000. Thereafter, LPA no. 03 of 2006
preferred and which was disposed with direction on
17.05.2006.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that his
termination was based on charges identical to those
faced by Salim Ansari @ Md. Salim, Sadanand Thakur,
2025:JHHC:28089
and Uma Shankar Singh, however, all of them were
reinstated. It has been next contended that the
petitioner was discriminated despite having served
continuously as a regular employee since 1987.
The petitioner has relied on the judgment
dated 14.07.2005 passed in L.P.A. No. 397/03 (State of
Jharkhand & Others vs. Sadanand Thakur & Others),
claiming parity with the reinstated employees.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent relies on
its counter affidavit and submits that as resolution no.
1918 dated 28.01.1976 and circular no. 16440 dated
03.12.1980 provision was made for appointment of
Class-III employees, other than the post which was to be
filled up by Public Service Commission, advertisement
was to be published for appointment of Class-III
employee and on receipt of application merit list was to
be prepared by a committee at Division Level and on
recommendation of name of the candidates by the
committee, appointment on class-III posts was to be
made by the Regional Deputy Director of Education in
the Division on the basis of merit/vacancy and roaster.
6. It has been next contended that as per clause-
7 of the Education Clerical Service Cadre Appointment,
Promotion and Transfer Rules; appointment of Class-III
staffs of Divisional cadre on temporary or permanent
2025:JHHC:28089
basis other than the post which was to be filled up by
the Public Service Commission; the Regional Deputy
Director of Education was/is the competent authority
and the Additional Director of Education had/has no
power/jurisdiction to appoint Class-III employee of
Divisional Cadre.
7. It has also been contended that as per the
provisions, an advertisement was to be published in the
local newspaper for appointment on Class-III/Class-IV
post by the competent authority with prior approval of
the competent authority, but without publication of
advertisement and without preparing merit list and
without recommendation of the competent selection
committee, the petitioner and 30 other candidates were
wrongly and illegally appointed by the then District
Education Officer, Sahibganj namely Alim Zang Khan,
vide memo no. 3165-67 dated 04.01.1989 (Annexure-1).
It has specifically been asserted that there is no
provision to advertise the post on the Notice board.
8. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties it
prima-facie appears that the procedure of appointment
was not followed in any manner. From records it further
transpires that the petitioner, along with other similarly
terminated employees, had earlier approached this
Court via C.W.J.C. No. 395/94, which was dismissed on
2025:JHHC:28089
06.02.1995. The subsequent L.P.A. No. 119/95 and
S.L.P. (Civil) No. 25352/95 were also dismissed by the
Division Bench and the Hon'ble Supreme Court
respectively.
However, the Apex Court, while dismissing the
S.L.P., observed that the petitioner may apply for future
appointments with age relaxation, but did not grant
reinstatement. Thus, it can be safely inferred that this
application is barred by the principle of res judicata, as
the claim has already been adjudicated up to the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
It has been specifically contended by the State
respondents that the judgment dated 14.07.2005 in
L.P.A. No. 397/03 was case-specific and explicitly stated
not to be treated as precedent.
9. As stated hereinabove, as per Resolution No.
1918 dated 28.01.1976 and Circular No. 16440 dated
03.12.1980, appointments to Class-III posts (excluding
those under the purview of the Public Service
Commission) were to be made through a transparent
process involving public advertisement in local
newspapers, preparation of a merit list by a Divisional
Level Committee, and final appointment by the Regional
Deputy Director of Education based on merit, vacancy,
and roster.
2025:JHHC:28089
Further, Clause 7 of the Education Clerical
Service Cadre Rules clearly designates the Regional
Deputy Director of Education as the sole competent
authority for such appointments. The Additional
Director of Education has no jurisdiction in this regard.
However, contrary to these provisions, the petitioner and
30 others were appointed by the then District Education
Officer, Sahibganj, Shri Alim Zang Khan, vide Memo No.
3165-67 dated 04.01.1989, without any advertisement,
merit list, or recommendation from the competent
committee.
Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion
that such appointments were made in violation of the
prescribed procedure and are therefore irregular and
unauthorized.
10. At the cost of repetition, the petitioner's claim
for reinstatement has already been conclusively
adjudicated by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. The principle of res judicata squarely applies. The
reliance of the petitioner on L.P.A. No. 397/03 is
misplaced, as the judgment therein was expressly
limited to the peculiar facts of that case and not
intended to serve as precedent.
11. In view of the above, the prayer for
reinstatement/reappointment is hereby rejected. The
2025:JHHC:28089
prayer for quashing Memo Nos. 3773-3880 dated
27.07.1993 and 1398/P dated 07.12.1993 is also
rejected. However, the petitioner's long-standing service
and the fact that he had worked until termination may
entitle him to applicable remuneration for the period, he
actually rendered service subject to verification by the
competent authority.
12. Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to
approach the competent authority by filing a detailed
representation for his claim of remuneration giving the
period of his work along with supporting documents
within a period of 4 weeks from today.
If the aforesaid representation/application is
preferred within the aforesaid stipulated period; the
respondent-authorities are directed to compute and
disburse the salary/wages to the petitioner for the
period of actual service rendered, subject to verification
by the competent authority, within a period of 16 weeks
from the date of receipt of such representation.
13. With the aforesaid direction and observation,
the same is hereby disposed of. Pending I.As., if any,
also closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Fahim/-
Dated:-11/09/2025
AFR/NAFR
