IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource
Development, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Directorate of Primary Education, Human Resource
Development, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education
Establishment Committee, Chatra.
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra. Appellants
…. .......
Versus
1.Rohit Kumar Gupta, s/o Ramjeevan Sah, r/o Kishanpur, PO & PS-
Morgomunda (Madhupur), District-Deoghar, State-Jharkhand.
2. Prabhakar Mishra, s/o Parmeshwar Prasad Mishra, r/o House No.6, Ward
No.07, Near High School, Margomunda, PO & PS-Margomunda, District-
Deoghar, State-Jharkhand Respondents
.......... …...
With
L.P.A No. 513 of 2023
1.The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Development Department, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Directorate of Primary Education, Human Resources
Development, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education
Establishment Committee, Dumka
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Dumka Appellants
…. .......
Versus
Mahesh Kumar, s/o Lalji Mahto, r/o Kodwey, Hazaribagh, PO-Garrikalan,
PS-Keredari, State-Jharkhand Respondent
.......... …...
With
L.P.A No. 521 of 2023
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Development, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
2. The Director of Primary Education, Human Resources Development,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Deputy Superintendent Education, Hazaribagh Appellants
.
…. .....
Versus
1. Rohit Kumar Mehta, aged about 48 years, s/o Hemlal Mehta, r/o Village-
Behradih, PO-Behradih, PS-Domchanch, District-Koderma
2. Vijay Kumar, aged about 54 years, s/o Janki Mahto, r/o Village-Basobar,
PO & PS-Daroo, District-Hazaribagh
3. Tarkishor Vishwakarma, aged about 40 years, s/o Somar Badhi, r/o
Village-Dabri, PO-Dabri, PS-Birni, District-Giridih
4. Nadim Akhtar, aged about 46 years, s/o Nasim Akhtar, r/o Village-
Manakdiha, PO-Gadi Bharkattha, PS-Birni, District-Giridih
Respondents
.......... …...
2
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
With
L.P.A No. 522 of 2023
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Development, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Directorate of Primary Education, Human Resources
Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education
Establishment Committee, Hazaribagh.
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh.
5. The District Education Officer, Hazaribagh. Appellants
…. ......
Versus
Sanjay Kumar Singh, aged about 43 years, s/o Saryu Singh, r/o Khatiaun,
PO-Deochanda & PS-Barhi, District-Hazaribagh Respondent
.......... …...
With
L.P.A No. 527 of 2023
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource
Development, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Directorate of Primary Education, Human Resource
Development, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education
Establishment Committee, Dumka.
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Dumka. Appellants
…. ......
Versus
Jhalbal Jha, s/o Meghnath Jha, permanently r/o Village-Ranga, PO & PS-
Mohanpur, District-Deoghar, State-Jharkhand and presently residing at
Prasidh Niwas, Near Indian Ranchi Press, Bilasi, Town-Deoghar, PO, PS &
District-Deoghar, State-Jharkhand. Respondent
.......... …...
With
L.P.A No. 528 of 2023
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Rajbhasha and Administrative
Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Director, Primary Education (Directorate of Education), Department
of Personnel, Rajbhasha and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Establishment
Committee, Ramgarh.
5. The District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh.
6. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Establishment
Committee, Pakur.
7. The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur.
8. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Establishment
Committee, Hazaribagh.
9. The District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh.
10. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Establishment
Committee, Koderma.
3
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
11. The District Superintendent of Education, Koderma.
12. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Establishment
Committee, Godda.
13. The District Superintendent of Education, Godda.
14. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Establishment
Committee, Sahebganj.
15. The District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj.
16. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Establishment
Committee, Jamtara.
17. The District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara.
18. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Establishment
Committee, Chatra.
19. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra. Appellants
…. ......
Versus
1. Prakash Prasad Gorain, aged about 49 years, s/o Gopal Gorain, r/o
Village-Hethbarga, PO-Barlanga, PS-Barlanga, District-Ramgarh,
Jharkhand (829110)
2. Prakash Thakur, aged about 43 years, s/o Nand Lal Thakur, r/o Village-
Aurandih, PO-Sangrampur, PS-Bairanga, District-Ramgarh, Jharkhand
(829110)
3. Nageshwar Mahtha, aged about 44 years, s/o Jagdish Mahto, r/o Village-
Pabra, PO-Pabra, PS-Katkamsandi, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
(825319)
4. Subhash Kumar Mahto, aged about 42 years, s/o Mahendra Nath Mahto,
r/o Village-Murudih, PO-Sangrampur, PS-Gola, District-Ramgarh,
Jharkhand (829110)
5. Abdul Kalam Kazi, aged about 41 years, s/o Md. Idrish Kazi, r/o Villate -
Daldali, PO-Barwa East, PS-Govindpur, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand
(828205)
6. Shiw Kumar Rajak, aged about 50 years, s/o late Aklu Rajak, r/o Village-
Bejrabad, PO-Charak, PS-Tundi, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand (828109)
7. Deepak Kumar Singh, aged about 38 years, s/o late Mathura Singh, r/o
Village-Chunglo, PO-Gadi Srirampur, PS-Giridih, District-Giridih,
Jharkhand (815302)
8. Ajay Kumar Mandal, aged about 42 years, s/o Shiv Shankar Mandal, r/o
Village-Gunghasa, PO-Gunghasa, PS-Hariharpur, Gomoh, District-
Dhanbad, Jharkhand Respondents
.......... …...
With
L.P.A No. 532 of 2023
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Project Building, Dhurwa, PO-Dhurwa, PS-Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi
2. The Secretary, School Education and Literacy Development Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand, MDI Building, Dhurwa, PO-Dhurwa, PS-Jagannathpur,
District-Ranchi
3. The Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy
Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, MDI Building, Dhurwa, PO-
Dhurwa, PS-Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra, PO, PS & District-
Chatra
4
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
5. The District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh, PO, PS & District-
Hazaribagh
6. The District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh, PO, PS & District-
Ramgarh
7. The District Superintendent of Education, Koderma, PO, PS & District-
Koderma
8. The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih, PO, PS & District-
Giridih
9. The District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro, PO, PS & District-
Bokaro
10. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad, PO, PS & District-
Dhanbad
11. The District Superintendent of Education, Dumka, PO, PS & District-
Dumka
12. The District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar, PO, PS & District-
Deoghar
13. The District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara, PO, PS & District-
Jamtara
14. The District Superintendent of Education,,Godda, PO, PS & District-
Godda
15. The District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj, PO, PS & District-
Sahibganj
16. The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur, PO, PS & District-
Pakur Appellants
…. ......
Versus
1.Sukar Thakur, aged about 45 years, s/o Mallu Thakur, r/o Village-
Bandasinga, PO-Belkappi, PS-Gorhar, District-Hazaribagh, State-Jharkhand
2. Md. Reyaz Ansari, aged 41 years, s/o Mustafa, r/o Village & PO-
Sheladih, PS-Gorhar, District-Hazaribagh, State-Jharkhand
3. Mukesh Kumar, aged about 46 years, s/o Sri Lakshman Modi, r/o
Village-Bandasinga, PO-Belkappi, PS-Gorhar, District-Hazaribagh, State-
Jharkhand
4. Rajesh Thakur, aged about 38 years, s/o Sri Dharam Thakur, r/o Village &
PO-Barwan, PS-Barkatha, District-Hazaribagh, State-Jharkhand
5. Nakul Mahto, aged about 40 years, s/o Sri Matuk Mahto, r/o Village-
Jamnidih, PO & PS-Barkagaon, District-Hazaribagh, State-Jharkhand
6. Ram Bharos Sahu, aged about 57 years, s/o Prayag Sahu Singh r/o
Village-Asarhiya, PO-Karni & PS-Itkhori, District-Chatra, State-Jharkhand
7. Krishna Yadav, aged about 42 years, s/o Sri Doman Yadav, r/o Village-
Koni, PO & PS-Itkhori, District-Chatra, State-Jharkhand
8. Vijay Prasad, aged about 41 years, s/o Sri Basudeo Prasad, r/o Village &
PO-Shelhara Kala, PS-Chouparan, District-Hazaribagh, State-Jharkhand.
Respondents
.......... …...
With
L.P.A No. 533 of 2023
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource
Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa,
Ranchi.
5
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
2. The Director, Primary Education (Directorate of Education), Human
Resource Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan,
Dhurwa, Ranchi
3. The Deputy Commissioner cum-Chairman, District Education
–
Established Committee, Dhanbad
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad
5. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education
Established Committee, Bokaro
6. The District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro
7. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education
Established Committee, Ramgarh
8. The District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh Appellants
…. ......
Versus
1.Nageshwar Prasad Singh, aged about 51 years, s/o Ram Kishun Singh, r/o
Village-Behra Kudar, PO -Jhagrahi, PS-Barora, District-Dhanbad, State-
Jharkhand
2. Bhubneswar Prasad, aged 52 years, s/o Bahadur Prasad, r/o Village-
Baghmara Basti, PO-Baghmara Bazar, PS-Baghmara, District-Dhanbad
3. Narayan Chabdra Mandal, aged about 51 years, s/o Sahdeo Mandal, r/o
Village-Koradih, PO-Pradhankhanta, PS-Topchanchi, Dsitrict-Dhanbad.
Respondents
.......... …...
With
L.P.A No. 534 of 2023
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource
Development, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi
2. The Director, Directorate of Primary Education, Human Resource
Development, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi
3. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education
Establishment Committee, Dumka
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Dumka
5. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education
Establishment Committee, Dhanbad
6. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad
7. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education
Establishment Committee, Ramgarh
8. The District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh
9. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education
Establishment Committee, Hazaribagh
10. The District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh Appellants
…. ......
Versus
1. Ramu Prasad Yadav, aged about 38 years, s/o Basudev Prasad Yadav, r/o
Masmohna, PO-Masmohna, PS-Nawalshahi, District-Koderma, State-
Jharkhand
2. Shankar Kumar Yadav, aged about 41 years, s/o Raman Yadav, r/o
Masmohna, PO-Masmohna, PS-Nawalshahi, District-Koderma, State-
Jharkhand
3. Koshal Kumar, aged about 42 years, s/o Deobrat Mandal, r/o Bargo, PO-
Bargo, PS-Jarmundi, District-Dumka, State-Jharkhand
6
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
4. Dharam Das, aged about 42 years, s/o Raman Das, r/o Selhara, Khurd,
PO-Selhara Kala. PS-Chouparan, District-Hazaribagh, State-Jharkhand
5. Mumtaz Ansari, aged about 37 years, s/o Md. Ashraf Ansari, r/o Nawa
Aahar, PO-Boria, PS-Deori, District-Giridih, State-Jharkhand
6. Md. Imran Ansari, aged about 39 years, s/o Md Siddique Ali, r/o Kadma,
PO-Kadma, PS-Kathikund, District-Dumka, State-Jharkhand
7. Ranjeet Kumar Baranwal, aged about 41 years, s/o Kameshwar Baranwal,
r/o Bichgarha, PO & PS-Sarwan, District-Deoghar, State-Jharkhand.
8. Rajesh Kumar, aged about 42 years, s/o Shambhu Yadav, r/o Ghaghari,
PO-Roundhia, PS-Saraiyahat, District-Dumka, State-Jharkhand
9. Lakshmi Kant Mahto, aged about 40 years, s/o Govardhan Mahto, r/o
Village-Pipradih, PO-Shikharjee, PS-Madhuban, District-Giridih, State-
Jharkhand. Respondents
.......... …...
With
L.P.A No. 536 of 2023
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource
Development, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Directorate of Primary Education, Human Resource
Development, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education
Establishment Committee, Chatra.
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra. Appellants
…. ......
Versus
1. Krishana Kumar, s/o Nand Kishore Sahu, r/o Bina Mohalla, PO & PS-
Chatra, State-Jharkhand
2. Hemraj Kumar Thakur, s/o late Badhan Thakur, r/o Village-Tulbul, PO-
Tulbul, PS-Rajpur, District-Chatra, State-Jharkhan Respondents
.......... …...
With
L.P.A No. 537 of 2023
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, School Education
and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, PO-Dhurwa, PS-
Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi
2. The Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
3. Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education
Establishment Committee, PO, PS & District-Hazaribagh.
5. The District Superintendent of Education, PO, PS & District-Hazaribagh.
Appellants
…. ......
Versus
Sahdeo Yadav, s/o Lalo Yadav, r/o Village-Gaida, PO-Gumobarwadih, PS-
Jai Nagar, District-Koderma, State-Jharkhand Respondent
.......... …...
With
L.P.A No. 539 of 2023
7
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
1. The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Human Resource
Development, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Directorate of Primary Education, Human Resource
Development, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education
Establishment Committee, Dhanbad.
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad. Appellants
…. ......
Versus
Niplal Mandal, s/o Kishori Mandal, r/o Village-Bhandaro, Deoghar, PO-
Margomunda, PS-Madhupur, State-Jharkhand Respondent
.......... …...
With
L.P.A No. 542 of 2023
1. State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource
Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa,
PO-Dhurwa, PS-Jagannathpur, Ranchi
2. The Director, Directorate at Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Project Building, Dhurwa, PO-Dhurwa, PS-Jagannathpur, Ranchi
3. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education
Establishment Committee, Giridih, PO & PS-Giridih
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih, PO & PS-Giridih
5. The District Education Officer, Giridih, PO & PS-Giridih
6. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education
Establishment Committee, Deoghar, PO & PS-Deoghar
7. The Superintendent of Education, Deoghar, PO & PS- Deoghar
8. The District Education Officer, Deoghar PO & PS- Deoghar
,
Appellants
…. ......
Versus
1.Sitaram Mahto, aged about 51 years, s/o Rati Mahto, r/o Village-Birani,
Tola Manpur Talab, PO-Birani, PS-Nawadih, District-Bokaro
2. Dhaneshwar Mahto, aged 44 years, s/o Dhuja Mahto, r/o-Village-
Gunjardih, PO & PS-Gunjardih, District-Bokaro Respondents
.......... …...
With
L.P.A No. 543 of 2023
1. State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Directorate of Primary Education, Human Resources
Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education
Establishment Committee, Hazaribagh.
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar.
5. The District Education Officer, Deoghar. Appellants
…. ......
8
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
Versus
1. Ashok Kumar Pandit, aged about 37 years, s/o Prayag Pandit, r/o Village-
Barkattha, PO-Jhingibarai, PS-Barkattha, District-Hazaribagh.
2. Shankar Prasad, aged 38 years, s/o Bodhi Mahto, r/o Village-Barkattha,
PO-Pesra, PS-Barkattha, District-Hazaribagh.
3. Shibu Kumar Mahto, aged about 39 years, s/o Nemchand Mahto, r/o
Village-Kaahto Tola Laiya, PO-Laiya, PS-Mandu, District-Hazaribagh.
Respondents
.......... …...
CORAM : THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellant-State : Mr. Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG-II
For the Respondents : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Tejaswita Safalta, Advocate
[
L.P.A Nos. 510, 513, 521, 522, 527, 528, 532, 533, 534.
536, 537, 539, 542 and 543 of 2023]
Ms. Sarita Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate
[L.P.A No. 534 of 2023]
------
J U D G M E N T
C.A.V on 1
st
December 2023 Pronounced on 31
st
January 2024
Per, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. A batch of 77 writ petitions were disposed of vide common judgment
dated 16 th February 2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2378 of 2019 (Paras Nath
Mandal v. State of Jharkhand) and other cases. The present 14 appeals arise
out of the following writ petitions which were also part of the aforesaid
batch of the writ petitions.
3. The case number of the present L.P.A(s) and the corresponding writ
petition(s) are as under:
i. L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 arising out of W.P.(S) No. 4333 of 2019,
ii. L.P.A No. 513 of 2023 arising out of W.P.(S) No. 2710 of 2019,
iii. L.P.A No. 521 of 2023 arising out of W.P.(S) No.2660 of 2019,
iv. L.P.A No. 522 of 2023 arising out of W.P.(S) No.2678 of 2019,
v. L.P.A No. 527 of 2023 arising out of W.P.(S) No. 4383 of 2019,
vi. L.P.A No. 528 of 2023 arising out of W.P.(S) No. 3136 of 2019,
vii. L.P.A No. 532 of 2023 arising out of W.P.(S) No. 2867 of 2019,
viii. L.P.A No. 533 of 2023 arising out of W.P.(S) No. 2879 of 2019,
9
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
ix. L.P.A No. 534 of 2023 arising out of W.P.(S) No. 3106 of 2019,
x. L.P.A No. 536 of 2023 arising out of W.P.(S) No. 5120 of 2019,
xi. L.P.A No. 537 of 2023 arising out of W.P.(S) No. 6140 of 2019,
xii. L.P.A No. 539 of 2023 arising out of W.P.(S) No.3766 of 2019,
xiii. L.P.A No.542 of 2023 arising out of W.P.(S) No.2871 of 2019
xiv. L.P.A No. 543 of 2023 arising out of W.P.(S) No. 2577 of 2019.
4. The reliefs as prayed for in various writ petitions are as under: -
(i) L.P.A. No. 510 of 2023 arises out of W.P.(S) No. 4333 of
2019. The petitioners approached the writ Court with the
following prayers:
“1. That by the instant writ petition the petitioners pray
before this Hon’ble Court to issue necessary
direction(s)/order(s)/writ(s) commanding upon the
Respondent Authorities to consider the application and
candidature of petitioners under the Non-Para category for
the remaining vacant seats of Inter Trained Teacher 1 to 5
(Non-Para) and to further consider the candidature of the
petitioners for the remaining vacant seats and if the
petitioners are found entitled then they shall be given
appointment as they had already applied for the aforesaid
vacancies at their respective districts in the year 2015.”
(ii) L.P.A. No. 513 of 2023 arises out of W.P.(S) No. 2710 of
2019. The petitioners approached the writ Court with the
following prayers:
“1. That by the instant writ petition the petitioner prays
to issue necessary
before this Hon’ble Court
direction(s)/order(s)/writ(s) commanding upon the
Respondent Authorities to consider the application of
petitioners under the Non-Para category and to allow the
petitioner to appear and participate in the counseling
process for the selection of Inter-Trained Teacher
Appointment 1 to 5 (2015-16) under the Non-Para Teacher
Category vacancy as his name has appeared at Sl no. 85
under the Provisional Merit List of Teacher Appointment 1
to 5 (2015-16) Non-Para for district of Dumka published
on 15.05.19.”
(iii) L.P.A. No. 521 of 2023 arises out of W.P.(S) No. 2660 of
2019. The petitioners approached the writ Court with the
following prayers:
“a. For issuance of an appropriate
writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the final merit list (annexure-1) published by the
respondent authorities in terms of which the candidates
lesser marks than the petitioners have been short listed for
selection in the post of Inter Trained Teacher Class-1 to 5,
under the para teacher category for the counseling to be
held on 03.06.2019 and the names of the petitioner who
have higher marks than the said candidates have been left
out from the counseling process.
And/ Or
10
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
b. For issuance of an appropriate provision in the nature of
mandamus commanding upon the respondents authorities
to publish a fresh merit list including the names of the
petitioners for participating in the counseling for selection
in the post of Inter Trained Teacher Class-1 to 5 under
Para Category as petitioners have obtained higher marks
from the persons who have been selected in the final merit
list published on 31.05.2019 for the different district of
Hazaribagh.”
(iv) L.P.A. No. 522 of 2023 arises out of W.P.(S) No. 2678 of
2019. The petitioners approached the writ Court with the
following prayers:
itioner begs to move before this Hon
“1. That the pet ’ble
Court for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction
directing the concerned Respondent to allow the petitioner
to participate in the counseling and accept his joining as
on the post of Teachers he obtained higher marks than the
other candidates and he discriminated the case of
petitioner for participating in the counseling and he are
allowing other candidates who obtained lesser marks than
the petitioner and his named bears in Data list, so he is
entitled to participate in the counseling but Respondents
did not allow which action is wholly illegal, malafide and
arbitrary as in pursuance of advertisement 01/2015 to fill
up posts of inter-trained Teacher (Hindi) advertisement
was published in the news-paper and also published in
different district for filling up the post of inter trained
teachers and petitioner applied in pursuance of vacancies
as he was possessing all the requisite qualification for the
ligibility Test
post of inter trained teacher and Teacher’s E
(TET) was held and he was declared successful and he
obtained qualifying marks for selection for the post of
Teacher and accordingly his name bears in the Data base
list but he was not called for participation in the
counseling which is elementary stage of joining on the
post of teacher but the Authority without following the
rules without looking the advertisement they are not
allowing the petitioner to participate in the counseling and
the case of the petitioner was not considered for the
counseling and joining on the post, though he obtained
much more marks then the other candidates his name
appear in the Data Base list in Hazaribag District so the
action of the Concerned Respondents highly
discriminatory, arbitrary and malafide and the same is
based on violation of principle of natural justice as well as
based on Articles 14 and 15 of the constitution of India so
the action of concerned respondents are against the rules,
law and action is malafide so, petitioner prays for
appropriate writ/order/direction as Your Lordships may
deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the
petitioner
.”
v) L.P.A. No. 527 of 2023 arises out of W.P.(S) No. 4383 of 2019.
(
The petitioner approached the writ Court with the following
prayers:
prays
“1. That by the instant writ petition the petitioner
ourt to issue necessary
before this Hon’ble C
direction(s)/order(s)/writ(s) commanding upon the
11
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
Respondent Authorities to consider the application and
candidature of petitioner under the Non Para category for
the remaining vacant seats of Inter Trained Teacher 1 to 5
(Non Para) and to further consider the candidature of the
petitioner for the remaining vacant seats and if the
petitioner is found entitled then he shall be given
appointment as he had already applied for the aforesaid
vacancies at district of Dumka in the year 2015
.”
(vi) L.P.A. No. 528 of 2023 arises out of W.P. (S) No. 3136 of
2019. The petitioners approached the writ Court with the
following prayers:
“a. For issuance of appropriate direction upon the
Respondents showing them cause as to why and under
what circumstance the Petitioners though shown qualified
for counseling scheduled on different dates in different
districts have not been entertained and allowed to
participate in counseling for their appointment on the post
of Inter Trained Teacher in "non-para category" in
connection with Advertisements issued by the office of
District Superintendent of Education of the District of
Pakur, Hazaribagh and Ramgarh.
b. To hold and declare that the petitioners are entitled for
appointment on the post of assistant teachers for Class I to
V in the category of "Non-Para" despite they being Para
Teachers, in as much as, the petitioners fulfil all the
criteria laid down under the Jharkhand Primary School
Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012 (as amended up to
date).
C. For issuance of appropriate direction upon the
Respondents to issue letter of appointment to the
Petitioners for the post of Intermediate Trained Teacher
since the Petitioners being eligible have qualified in the
districts of Pakur, Hazaribagh and Ramgarh and were
called also for counseling in respective districts but
erroneously not allowed to participate in the counseling on
the ground that the Petitioners being a para teacher can be
considered only in para category and not in non-para
category while considering the fact the Division Bench of
this Hon'ble Court in L.P.A. No. 186/2017 and L.P.A. No.
199/2017 have settled the issue and further the candidates
of Non-Para Category who have been given letter of
appointment by other districts but subsequently removed
now again been inducted in the light of order of the writ
court passed in the light of order given in L.P.A. No.
186/2017 and L.P.A. No. 199/2017.”
(vii) L.P.A. No. 532 of 2023 arises out of W.P. (S) No. 2867 of
2019. The petitioners approached the writ Court with the
following prayers:
“a. For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions and a writ in nature of mandamus
commanding upon the Respondents to continue the
counseling for appointment of Inter/Graduate Trained
Teachers till last existing advertised vacancies in pursuant
to order of this Hon’ble Court dated 02.02.2017 passed in
W.P. (S) No. 19/2016 (Annexure-6) with other analogous
writ petitions, which has been affirmed by Hon’ble
Division Bench vide order dated 11.05.2018 passed in
12
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
L.P.A. No. 168/2017 (Annexure-7), wherein, there is clear
cut direction in Para 19 & 20 of order dated 02.02.2017
that one more counseling be conducted for appointment on
the remaining Advertised Vacancy and counseling may
continue for more than one day, but again the authorities
have arbitrarily stopped the selection process after doing
one day counseling though the advertised vacancies are
still remained vacant.
b. For issuance of appropriate direction upon the
Respondents to give priority to the Para Teachers who are
having above position in merit list and also having
teaching experience but the authorities are calling the
candidates for counseling from below merits of Non Para
candidates.
c. For issuance of appropriate direction upon the
Respondents to continue the appointment process till last
existing vacancy of Intermediate/Graduate Trained
Teacher and fill up the remaining seats from the petitioners
only considering the lengthy process of selection so that
followed in its true
Hon’ble Court’s direction can be
spirit.”
(viii) L.P.A. No. 533 of 2023 arises out of W.P. (S) No. 2879 of
2019. The petitioners approached the writ Court with the
following prayers:
That in the instant writ application, the petitioners pray
“1.
from this Hon'ble Court for issuance of an appropriate
writ(s)/ order(s) direction(s) commanding upon the
concerned respondents showing them cause as to why and
under what circumstance, the counseling of petitioners
who are the Para Teachers have not been taken for
appointment of the post of Inter Trained Teacher in Para
Category who obtained higher merit marks in connection
with Advertisements issued by the concerned
Respondents, whereas the counseling of some Para
Teachers have been taken who obtained less marks from
the petitioners.
And
Further pray for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/
Order(s) direction(s) commanding upon the concerned
respondents to take counseling of petitioners who are the
Para Teachers for appointment of the post of Inter Trained
Teacher in Para Category who obtained higher merit
marks in connection with Advertisements issued by the
concerned Respondent whereas several seats of the post of
Inter Trained Teacher are still vacant.
AND/OR
Further pray for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/
Order(s) direction(s) commanding upon the concerned
respondents to issue letters of appointment to the
petitioners for the post of Intermediate Trained Teacher
since the petitioners are TET passed and obtained higher
merit marks and fulfill all the criteria from some other
Para Teachers, whose counseling has already been taken
by the respondents.”
(ix) L.P.A. No. 534 of 2023 arises out of W.P. (S) No. 3106 of
2019. The petitioners approached the writ Court with the
following prayers:
13
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
n the petitioners pray
“1. That by the instant writ petitio
before this Hon’ble Court to issue necessary
direction(s)/order(s)/writ(s) commanding upon the
Respondent Authorities to consider the application and
candidature of Petitioners under the non-para category for
the remaining vacant seats of Inter Trained Teacher 1 to 5
(Non-Para) and to further consider the candidature of the
petitioners for the remaining vacant seats and if the
petitioners are found entitled then they shall be given
appointment as they had already applied for the aforesaid
vacancies at their respective districts in the year 2015 and
candidates having lesser marks than the petitioners have
been called and allowed to participate in the counseling.”
(x) L.P.A. No. 536 of 2023 arises out of W.P. (S) No. 5120 of
2019. It has been stated by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in their
affidavit dated 12.12.2023 that they are para-teachers and they
applied under the para-teacher category.
(xi) L.P.A. No. 537 of 2023 arises out of W.P. (S) No. 6140 of
2019. The petitioner approached the writ Court with the following
prayers:
a. For quashing and setting aside order as contained in
“
memo no. 1311 dated 15.07.2019 (Annexure-8) district
superintendent of education, Hazaribagh whereby and
whereunder the petitioner has been denied any benefit in
the present appointment process in contradiction of the
judgment dated 11.05.2018 passed in L.P.A. No. 186/2017
with L.P.A. No. 199/2017.
b. For quashing and setting aside notification no. 662
dated 02.05.2019 (Annexure-4) whereby and whereunder
the department has tried to water down the benefit given to
para teachers to be considered under non-para teacher
category by inserting contradictory clauses.
c. For quashing the final merit list published on 1.06.2019
(Annexure-9) inviting candidates in non-para category for
counseling in the district of Hazaribagh as the candidates
who have scored lesser marks than the petitioner find
place in the said merit list.
d. Directing the respondents concerned to include the
name of the petitioner in list of the candidates invited for
counseling for the post of assistant teachers in government
primary schools for classes 1 to 5 insofar as the petitioner
has higher marks than the candidates whose names are
appearing in
the final merit list.”
(xii) L.P.A. No. 539 of 2023 arises out of W.P. (S) No. 3766 of
2019. The petitioner approached the writ Court with the following
prayers:
er prays
“1. That by the instant writ petition the petition
e Court to issue necessary
before this Hon’bl
direction(s)/order(s)/writ(s) commanding upon the
Respondent Authorities to consider the application of
Petitioner under the Most Backward Class category in the
light of Memo No. 2604 dated 06.11.15 (contained in
Annexure 3) for the remaining vacant seats for the
selection of Inter-trained Teacher Appointment 1 to 5
(2015-16) under the Non-Para Teacher Category vacancy
14
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
as his name has appeared at Sl no. 1923 in the Provisional
List of Teacher Appointment 1 to 5 (2015-16) Non Para
for district of
Dhanbad.”
(xiii) L.P.A. No. 542 of 2023 arises out of W.P. (S) No. 2871 of
2019. The petitioners approached the writ Court with the
following prayers:
“1. That the petitioners beg to move before this Hon'ble
Court for issuance of an appropriate writ / order / direction
directing the concerned Respondent to allow the
petitioners to participate in the counseling and accept their
joining as on the post of Teacher they obtained higher
marks than the other candidates and they discriminated the
case of petitioners for participating in the counseling and
they are allowing other candidates who obtained lesser
marks than the petitioners and their named bears in Merit
list, so they are entitled to participate in the counseling but
Respondents did not allow which action is wholly illegal,
malafide and arbitrary as in pursuance of advertisement to
fill up posts of inter-trained Teacher (Hindi advertisement
was published in the news-paper and also published in
different district for filling up the post of their trained
teachers and petitioners applied in pursuance of vacancies
as they were possessing all the requisite qualification for
the post of inter trained teacher a
nd Teacher’s Eligibility
Test (TET) was held and they was declared successful and
the obtained qualifying marks for selection for the post of
Teacher and accordingly their name bear in the Merit list
but they were not called for participation in the counseling
which is elementary stage of joining on the post of teacher
but they Authority without following the rules without
looking the advertisement they are not allowing the
petitioners to participate in the counseling and the case of
the petitioners was not considered for the counseling and
joining on the post, though they obtained much more
marks then the other candidates their name appear in the
Merit list in Giridih & Deoghar District so the action of
the concerned Respondents is highly discriminatory,
arbitrary and malafide and the same is based on violation
of principles of natural justice as well as based or Articles
14 and 16 of the constitution of India so the action of
concerned respondents are against the rules, law and
action is malafide so, petitioners pray for appropriate
writ/order/direction as Your Lordships may deem fit and
proper for doing conscionable justice to
the petitioners.”
(xiv) L.P.A. No. 543 of 2023 arises out of W.P. (S) No. 2577 of
2019. The petitioners approached the writ Court with the
following prayers:
ove be e
“1. That the petitioners beg to m fore this Hon’bl
Court for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction
directing the concerned Respondent to allow the
petitioners to participate in the counseling and accept their
joining as on the post of Teacher they obtained higher
marks than the other candidates and they discriminated the
case of petitioners for participating in the counseling and
they are allowing other candidates who obtained lesser
marks than the petitioners and their named bears in Data
list, so they are entitled to participate in the counseling but
15
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
Respondents did not allow which action is wholly illegal,
malafide and arbitrary as in pursuance of advertisement
01/2015 to fill up posts of inter-trained Teacher (Hindi)
advertisement was published in the news-paper and also
published in different district for filling up the post of inter
trained teachers and petitioners applied in pursuance of
vacancies as they were possessing all the requisite
qualification for the post of inter trained teacher and
t (TET) were held and they were
Teacher’s Eligibility Tes
declared successful and they obtained qualifying marks for
selection for the post of Teacher and accordingly their
name bear in the Data base list but they were not called for
participation in the counseling which is elementary stage
of joining on the post of teacher but the Authority without
following the rules without looking the advertisement they
are not allowing the petitioner to participate in the
counseling and the case of the petitioners were not
considered for the counseling and joining on the post,
though they obtained much more marks than the other
candidates their name appear in the Data Base list in
Hazaribag District so the action of the Concerned
Respondents highly discriminatory, arbitrary and malafide
and the same is based on violation of principle of natural
justice as well as based on Articles 14 and 16 of the
constitution of India so the action of concerned
respondents are against the rules, law and action is
malafide so, petitioners pray for appropriate
writ/order/direction as Your Lordships may deem fit and
proper for doing conscionable justice
to the petitioner.”
5. The status of the writ petitioners in the cases involved in these batch
are as under:-
L.P.A. No. Corresponding Petitioner(s) category Post applied for
Writ Petition No.
510 of 2023 4333 of 2019 Para Teacher Non-Para Teacher Category
513 of 2023 2710 of 2019 Para Teacher Non-Para Teacher Category
521 of 2023 2660 of 2019 Para Teacher Non-Para Teacher Category
522 of 2023 2678 of 2019 Para Teacher Para Teacher Category
527 of 2023 4383 of 2019 Para Teacher Non-Para Teacher Category
528 of 2023 3136 of 2019 Para Teacher Non-Para Teacher Category
532 of 2023 2867 of 2019 Para Teacher Para Teacher Category
533 of 2023 2879 of 2019 Para Teachers Para Teacher Category
534 of 2023 3106 of 2019 Petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 Non-Para Teacher Category
are para teachers and
petitioner No. 8 is not a
para teacher.
536 of 2023 5120 of 2019 Para Teachers Para Teacher Category
537 of 2023 6140 of 2019 Para Teacher Non-Para Teacher Category
539 of 2023 3766 of 2019 Para Teacher Non-Para Teacher Category
16
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
542 of 2023 2871 of 2019 Para Teacher Non-Para Teacher Category
543 of 2023 2577 of 2019 Para Teacher Non-Para Teacher Category
6. Thus, the batch of cases at hand broadly involves two categories. one,
para-teachers applied under the non-para-teacher category, and second,
para-teachers applied under the para-teacher Category. Writ petitioner no. 8
(Rajesh Kumar son of Shambhu Yadav) in WPS No. 3106 of 2019
(corresponding L.P.A. no. 534 of 2023) is not a para teacher and had applied
under non para teacher category.
7. Arguments of the appellants.
A. By referring to the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 (affirmed
in LPA No. 168 of 2017) it has been submitted that in the order passed
by writ Court and confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court,
there is a clear direction that there shall be only one counseling in all
the districts of the State but the writ Court while passing the impugned
order has failed to consider the direction as passed in W.P. (S) No. 19
of 2016.
B. The writ Court while passing the impugned order has further failed to
consider that in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 (affirmed in LPA No. 168 of
2017) had directed that the candidates who were earlier called for
counseling shall not be permitted in the counseling except those
permitted by the order of the Court.
C. It has further been submitted that the writ Court ought to have
considered that as per resolution dated 02.05.2019 issued in pursuance
of the guidelines issued by this Court, the candidates who were
previously called for counseling would not be invited for counseling.
8. Arguments of the writ-petitioners
The learned counsel for the writ petitioners has opposed the prayer and has
submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference as out
of the same batch of the writ petitions one batch of L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022
and other analogous cases have been decided by a co-ordinate Division
Bench wherein appropriate directions have also been issued and such a
decision is a binding precedent therefore different view may not be taken in
these batch of cases. It is also submitted that any different view would be
against the judicial discipline.
17
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
st
9. Pursuant to the order dated 01 December 2023 written submissions
have been filed by the respondents in L.P.A. Nos. 510/2023, 513/2023,
521/2023, 527/2023, 528/2023, 534/2023, 537/2023, 539/2023, 542/2023 &
543/2023, and no written submission has been filed in L.P.A. Nos.
522/2023, 532/2023, 533/2023 and 536/2023. The aforesaid chart would
reflect that no written submission has been filed on behalf of para-teachers
who had applied under the para-teacher category. Further, there is no
mention of one isolated writ petitioner no. 8 (connected LPA No. 534/2023)
who is not a para teacher and had applied under non-para teacher category.
Findings of this Court.
Background of the cases
10. The background of the cases is that an advertisement was issued in
the year 2015 in different districts for the appointment of intermediate-
trained teachers and graduate-trained teachers. The applicable rule was
Jharkhand Elementary School Teachers Appointment Rules, 2012. The
candidates were to apply district-wise and make different applications for
different districts. As per the advertisement, out of the total posts, 50% were
to be filled up by para teachers who were working in government schools
whereas the remaining 50% were to be filled up by non-para teacher
candidates.
11. The counseling was stopped midway without filling up the vacancies
as advertised which led to the filing of writ petitions before this Court
including W.P.(S) No.19 of 2016 and W.P.(S) No.32 of 2016. All the
petitioners in the batch of writ petitions decided in W.P.(S) No.19 of 2016
and other analogous cases were para-teachers. A common question of law
arose for consideration in the said writ petitions as to whether appointment
against advertised vacancies can be denied arbitrarily by deciding not to
conduct further counseling resulting in arbitrary denial of appointment. It
was the case of the State before the writ Court that the schedule fixed by the
Department vide order dated 03.07.2015 was that the selection process was
to be completed by 18.09.2015 and upon expiry of the period, further
counseling was stopped in all the districts. It stood admitted in the writ
proceeding that in most of the districts, counseling continued till December
2015 and in a few districts, counseling was also held in the month of
18
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
January 2016. It was the case of the petitioners in those cases that they were
shortlisted as eligible candidates and were included in the panel of eligible
candidates. The writ Court was of the view that denial of appointment to
eligible candidates against the remaining unfilled vacancies was illegal and
not justified. It was observed that the number of counseling in different
districts varied from 6 to 10 and there were a large numbers of unfilled posts
in each district. This Court was of the view that it was not in the public
interest to leave such a large number of vacancies unfilled and deprive
appointment to the eligible candidates. This Court was also of the view that
the situation can be remedied if one more counseling is conducted for the
appointment in the remaining advertised vacancies.
12. The writ Court also took note of the plea raised in W.P.(S) No.19 of
2016 based on paragraph 16(iii) of the counter affidavit that the candidates
lower in the merit list were appointed but the petitioners were left out. In the
said writ petition under the order passed on 11.01.2017, a supplementary
counter-affidavit was filed in which it was clarified that the minimum cut-
off marks reflected therein were for female candidates which was
corroborated by the chart produced along with the counter-affidavit. In such
a view, this Court observed that no further inquiry on the aforesaid plea was
required. The writ Court was further of the view that in the matter of
appointment, there is a necessity to extend similar benefits to other eligible
candidates to avoid potential future litigations claiming similar benefits by
other eligible candidates who may be higher in the merit-list than the
petitioners before the Court.
13. In the aforesaid background that writ petition being W.P.(S) No.19 of
2016 with W.P.(S) No.32 of 2016 and other analogous cases were allowed
with the directions contained in paragraphs nos.19 and 20 of the judgment
dated 02.02.2017 to conduct one more counseling simultaneously in all the
districts in terms of directions contained in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the
judgment, quoted as under:
19. In the light of the foregoing discussions, the following directions
“
are issued:-
(i) A public notice, indicating that counselling for all unfilled advertised
rd th
vacancies in all the districts shall be conducted in the 3 / 4 week
of March, 2017. It shall be published in two daily newspapers on or
before 23.02.2017. The public notice shall also indicate that no
further opportunity to produce original certificate would be granted
19
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
to the candidates. The counselling may continue for more than one
day.
(ii) An exercise to short-list eligible candidates viz-a-viz vacancy-position in
each category shall be undertaken and candidates twice the number of
total vacancies, merit-wise, after the last selected candidate shall be
rd
put on the web-site, preferably by the 3 week of March 2017.
However, it may not be necessary to call all short-listed candidates for
counseling.
(iii) The name o
f candidates falling under the “zone of consideration” as
indicated in clause (ii) above shall be put on the web-site, at least one
week prior to the date of counselling.
(iv) The entire exercise must be concluded by 31.03.2017.
20. It is further made clear that there shall be only one counselling in
all the districts of the State and counselling shall be conducted
simultaneously in all the districts. The candidates who were earlier
called for counselling shall not be permitted to participate in the
counselling except, those permitted by an order of the Court.
”
14. The judgment dated 02.02.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No.19 of 2016 was
challenged in LPA No.168 of 2017 which was dismissed vide judgment
dated 11.05.2018 by observing that there were genuine difficulties
canvassed by the original writ petitioners and there was a need of competent
teachers. Considering the total number of vacancies advertised, the Division
Bench found no reason to take a different view than what was taken by the
learned writ Court in paragraphs nos.19 and 20 as quoted above whereby a
reasonable opportunity of one more counseling was given. It was also
observed that such direction cannot be said to be contrary to any law or any
clause of the advertisement or circular issued by the State Government as
there was not even a single circular regarding the minimum or maximum
number of counseling. It was also observed that out of the total number of
advertised vacancies of 10,000, 3832 vacancies were still unfilled and no
prejudice would be caused if directions given in paragraphs nos.19 and 20
of the order dated 02.02.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No.19 of 2016 is complied
by the State. On the contrary, it appeared that the State was given one more
chance to perform its duty. While dismissing the appeal the Division Bench
directed the Secretary, School Education and Literacy Development
Department, Government of Jharkhand to complete the exercise of
counseling as directed by the writ Court in W.P.(S) No.19 of 2016 in
paragraph nos.19 and 20 as early as possible and practicable, and in no case
later than a period of four months from 11.05.2018.
20
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
15. On the same day i.e. 11.05.2018, another batch of Letters Patent
Appeal being LPA No.186 of 2017 and another analogous case arising out of
the same selection process was disposed of. In the said LPA, the original
writ petitioners working as para teachers had not applied under the reserved
category meant for para-teachers but had applied under the non-para
teachers category. The State had argued that the original petitioners were
working as para-teachers so they must apply or they shall be deemed to have
applied, under the reserved category quota for para teachers. Such argument
of the State was rejected by the Division Bench by observing that there was
no rule, regulation or Government Circular or Government Policy that those
candidates, who were already working as para teachers must apply under the
reserved category meant for para-teachers and there was no such condition
attached with the public advertisement in question that those candidates,
who were working as para-teachers must apply for the reserved category
seats meant for para- teachers. It was further observed that on the contrary, it
depends upon the confidence of the candidate to apply under the reserved
category or not to apply under the reserved category and there was no bar
for such candidates that they could not apply under the General category,
which was meant for non-para teachers and such candidates were confident
enough not to take advantage of the age relaxation or any other type of
relaxation meant for the para-teachers as given by the government. It was
observed that the concerned writ Court while deciding W.P.(S) No.6031 of
2015 and W.P.(S) No.173 of 2016 vide common judgment dated 02.03.2017
had not properly appreciated these aspects of the matter and consequently
the judgment dated 02.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge was
quashed and set aside. The Division Bench passed direction upon the State
to initiate the counseling of the original petitioners, as early as possible and
practicable, so that it can be completed within a period of four months from
11.05.2018 in terms of the direction contained therein and by considering
the candidature of the writ petitioners as per non-para teacher category
vacancies subject to fulfilling the conditions by the appellants regarding
eligibility criteria for age etc. Another LPA being LPA No.172 of 2018
which was on similar line as that of the LPA No.186 of 2017 was decided on
23.07.2018 with similar directions. Thereafter, in writ petition being W.P.(S)
21
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
No. 2142 of 2019 and W.P.(S) No. 768 of 2019 with other analogous cases
decided on 13.05.2019, the benefits extended to para teachers applying
under the non-para teacher category vide LPA No.186 of 2017 were
extended to all such persons who were similarly situated and direction was
also issued to the State to include the name of all the writ petitioners of
W.P.(S). No.2142 of 2019 and other analogous cases in the counseling
process for selection of Assistant Teachers.
16. Under the aforesaid orders passed by this Court and for conducting
one counseling for all districts on one day, a Resolution dated 02.05.2019
was issued mentioning that the candidates who were previously called for
counseling would not be invited for counseling to be held on 03.06.2019 and
the entire procedure for conducting a single round of counseling was
conducted by the appellants on 03.06.2019 and a number of persons were
appointed.
17. Thereafter another batch of writ petitions W.P.(S) No. 2378 of 2019
and other analogous cases fell for consideration before the writ Court which
have been disposed of vide impugned order dated 16.02.2022. As recorded
in the impugned order itself in paragraph 3, the writ petitioners had
approached the writ Court with the common prayer seeking a direction upon
the appellants to consider their candidature in respective categories, that is,
para teacher and non-para teacher category for the district for which they
had applied for against the vacant seats of Intermediate Trained Teachers.
18. The learned writ Court referred to the entire background of the matter
and the fresh cause of action to approach this Court again has recorded in
paragraph 6 of the impugned order.
Cause of action for filing W.P. (S) No. 2378 of 2019 and other analogous
cases and the case of the writ petitioners before the learned writ Court.
19. The cause of action for filing batch of writ petitions being W.P. (S)
No. 2378 of 2019 and other analogous cases as mentioned in the impugned
order is that though the writ petitioners had applied for several districts but
their names were not included in counseling list of any of the districts and
their specific grievance was that the candidates having lesser marks than the
writ petitioners were included in the counseling list and were also called for
appearing in the counseling and were given appointment in the year 2019
22
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
itself. It was argued by the learned counsels for the writ petitioners in the
batch of writ petitions that the counseling was to be conducted against the
vacant seats in light of the advertisement of the year 2015 for all the
respective categories i.e. para teacher as well as non-para teacher category
and since the writ petitioners had secured more marks in the merit list than
the candidates who were appointed in the year 2019 therefore, the
candidature of the writ petitioners ought to have been considered. It was
also argued that since the writ petitioners were never called for counseling
therefore their candidature ought to be considered in terms of Clause 6 (d)
of the aforesaid Resolution / Sankalp dated 02.05.2019. It was also argued
that in light of the direction given in Order dated 13.05.2019 in W.P.(S.) no.
768 / 2019 with analogous cases(supra) the state ought to have considered
the cases of all the candidates depending upon the merit list including the
candidates who had not approached th
e Hon’ble Court. It was also argued
that for several districts, the names of the same candidates were published
for counseling and as such, the seats remained vacant even after the
counseling was conducted as one candidate could have participated in the
counseling for only one district. It was argued that in several districts the
candidates who had obtained lesser marks than the writ petitioners were
included in the merit list and called for counseling and appointed after
counseling only on the ground that earlier they had approached this Court
for redressal of their grievances. It was submitted that the State had filed a
counter affidavit showing the chart of cut-off marks for all the districts of
the State of Jharkhand and from there, it was evident that the writ petitioners
had more marks than the last candidate who was appointed in their
respective categories in their respective districts.
Case of the appellants before the writ Court.
20. It was submitted by the appellants before the writ Court that as the
advertised posts belong to the district cadre, hence, the cut-off marks vary
for each category in each district due to the number of applications received
by the respective districts and the number of candidates appearing in the
counseling process. The cut-off marks for the appointment of para teachers
and non-para teachers were published before the fresh counseling by every
district and the candidates were allowed to participate in the counseling as
23
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
per the operative portion of the order(s) passed in W.P.(S). No. 19 of 2016,
wherein this Court has observed that there shall be only one counseling in
all the districts of the State and counseling shall be conducted
simultaneously in all the districts and the candidates who were earlier called
for counseling shall not be called for counseling, except, those permitted by
an order of the Court.
21. It was argued that the database showing marks of individual
candidates had been prepared by the respective district and was published
on the district Website pursuant to the directions issued by the Directorate
which was evident from letter No. 203 dated 29.01.2019. As per the
directions of this Court, Resolution No. 662 dated 02.05.2019 was issued,
and according to para-6(e)(i) of the said resolution, the candidates who were
previously called for counseling (attended or not attended) were not invited
again for attending the present counseling. Since the writ petitioners were
earlier called for counseling in various districts, therefore, they were not
invited for fresh counseling held on 03.06.2019. It was submitted that the
prayer of the petitioners was not maintainable as the entire fresh round of
counseling was over and writ petitioners were not allowed to participate in
the counseling process as per the direction of the High Court hence, the
present writ petitions were devoid of any merit and was liable to be
dismissed at the outset.
Findings of the writ Court, the issue framed and directions issued
22. The writ court recorded its findings, interalia, in paragraphs 10 and
12 as under: -
10. Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of learned
“
counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on
record, it appears that the cases have got chequered history. Earlier
similarly situated persons (para teachers and non-para teachers) had
approached this Court in W.P.(S). No. 19 of 2016 and other analogous
cases (Binod Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand &
Ors.), for appointment by way of fresh counseling as the same has been
denied by the State in an arbitrary manner. It was contended by the State
in those cases that because of the time schedule fixed by the Department
vide letter dated 03.07.2015, wherein selection process was to be
completed by 18.09.2015, further counseling was stopped in all the
districts. The matter was heard at length by the learned Single Judge and
taking into consideration that no conscious decision has been taken by the
State to stop the appointment process and as the eligible candidates were
there and also since posts were lying vacant and vacancies were there,
denial of appointment was held to be completely illegal and not justified.
24
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
Admittedly, the appointment process cannot continue for an indefinite
period and it has to come to a logical end and must be stopped somewhere.
The learned Single Judge considering every aspects of the matter, was of
the view that the issues can be resolved if one more counseling is
conducted for appointment for remaining advertised posts. The Court was
very much conscious of the fact that if the cases of the petitioners in the
aforesaid writ petitions are allowed, similarly situated persons may also
approach this Court for similar orders and even if they did not approach, in
view of celebrated judgmen e Apex Court in case of State of
t of Hon’bl
U.P. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava [(2015) 1 SCC 347], the normal rule
is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by Court, all other
identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that
benefit. Accordingly, this Court allowed the writ petition being W.P.(S).
No. 19 of 2016 and other analogous cases.
”
12. The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged before the
Division Bench in LPA No. 168 of 2017 (State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs.
Binod Kumar Yadav & Ors.) issing the
and the Hon’ble Court while dism
said LPA clearly observed that, irect the Secretary, School
“We, therefore, d
Education and Literacy Development Department, Government of
Jharkhand to complete the exercise of counseling as directed by the
learned Single Judge in Paragraph 19 and 20, as aforesaid, as early as
possible and practicable, and in no case later than a period of four months
. The same view as expressed by this Court in different LPAs
from today”
and in different Writ Petitions, wherein it was clearly held that no other
view other than what has been expressed in para-19 and 20 of the
judgment passed in WP(S). No. 19 of 2016 and other analogous cases and
in para-8 of the judgment passed in LPA No. 168 of 2017 can be taken.
The present writ petitions have been filed on the ground that the writ
petitioners have secured more marks than the last selected candidates who
have been appointed in the year 2019 and therefore, the candidature of
these petitioners ought to have been considered. It is the specific
contention of learned counsel representing the petitioners that they were
never called for counseling, therefore, their candidature ought to have been
considered in terms of Clause-6(d) of the Resolution/ Sankalp dated
02.05.2019.
Though a specific direction was given to the State for coming-out with the
vacancy positions, the same has not been complied with though several
adjournments were made and several affidavits were filed by the State.
”
23. The learned writ court framed the issue for consideration in
paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment and order as follows: -
. Now, the sole issue before this Court is whether left-out
“13
candidates, who have secured more marks than the last selected
candidates, can be further for counseling for appointment to the
post of Assistant Teacher (Para or Non-Para) since they have
never been called for counseling earlier.
”
25
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
24. The issue framed in paragraph 13 of the impugned order has been
answered vide paragraph 14 to 17 and the findings are summarized
as under: -
a. The Clause 6(e)(i)to(v) of the resolution of the State
Government dated 02.05.2019, contained in memo No. 662,
clearly speaks that those who were earlier called for
counseling, whether participated or not, were not to be called
again and only those candidates will be called for counseling,
who obtained the order of the Court for participating in the
fresh counseling. The State has denied counseling of present
petitioners though they have secured more marks than the last
selected candidates.
b. The law is well settled that merely because the candidates were
successful in the exams they do not acquire an indefeasible
right to be appointed on the vacant post. There is no quarrel to
the settled principle of law but simultaneously it is also clear
from aforesaid legal propositions that the State does not have
the license of going in an arbitrary manner. If vacancies are
still there, the candidates who have approached this Court on
fulfilling the requisite qualifications and are eligible for
appointment in all respects, having more marks than the last
selected candidates, then certainly the State is bound to
consider their cases as no fresh advertisement has yet been
floated for appointment of the Assistant Teachers (para and
non-para) in which the backlog vacancies can also be added.
c. In the instant case, the petitioners were never called for
counseling. The case of the State that the order of the Court
passed in the aforesaid writ petition and LPA have been fully
complied with, is not acceptable to this Court as the legal
proposition that has been laid down in the case of Arvind
Kumar Srivastava (supra) was also to be considered and
implemented and it is not that the persons who had approached
this Court can only be benefited. Further, these petitioners
were never called for counseling, and hence, the contention of
the State is also not acceptable.
d. In the present case, since the petitioners have obtained more
marks than the candidates whose names figured in the select
list, are entitled to be considered for appointment if the
vacancies are still there and the same has not been advertised
as yet.
e. Since the ambiguity as to whether para teachers can apply under
non-para category has already been set at rest by this Court in
LPA No. 186 of 2017 (Pawan Singh Choudhary & Ors. Vs.
the State of Jharkhand & Ors.), without the said distinction,
they may be called for appointment inviting them for one time
counseling. The appointment of less meritorious candidates is
in contravention of the provisions enshrined under Article 14
and 16 of the Constitution.
26
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
25. After recording the aforesaid findings, the writ Court issued the
directions contained in paragraphs 18 to 20 of the impugned
judgment as follows: -
. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules,
“18
guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, 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.
Let the entire process be completed within a period of
four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of
this order.
19. Let it be made clear that no further counseling 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.
20. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all these
writ petitions stand allowed.
”
26. Different Letters Patent Appeals were filed against the impugned
order passed in the batch of writ petitions and some of them have
been decided vide order dated 15.09.2023 passed in L.P.A. No. 203
of 2022 and other analogous cases wherein the coordinate Division
Bench of this Court has refused to interfere with the order passed by
the writ Court and has issued fresh directions for compliance with the
order. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the parties that the
directions as contained in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 and other
analogous cases have not yet been complied with by the appellants
and in the meantime, this batch of appeals arising out of the same
impugned order has been listed for consideration.
27
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
27. The L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous cases were heard
by a coordinate Division Bench of this Court and were dismissed by
citing reasons in paragraph 56 of the judgment which is quoted as
under: -
56. This Court, on appreciation of rival submissions advanced on
“
behalf of parties, is of the view that the impugned order passed by
learned Single Judge does not require interference on the
following grounds:
I. It is admitted fact that the Co-ordinate Single Bench has
passed order dated 02.02.2017 in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 and
analogous cases wherein at paragraph 20 direction has been given
that there shall be only one counseling holding therein
that “It is
further made clear that there shall be only one counseling in all
the districts of the State …”.
II. The order dated 02.02.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 19 of
2016 and analogous cases was affirmed in intra-court appeal i.e.,
in L.P.A. No. 168 of 2017 showing no interference in the order
passed by learned Single Judge.
III. Further the issue of allowing the candidates falling under
para-teacher category to participate in the process of selection
under non-para teacher category fell for consideration before the
learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 6031 of 2015 and analogous
cases, which was negated, against which the writ petitioners
preferred intra-court appeal being LPA 186 of 2017 with LPA 199
of 2017, which was allowed vide order dated 11.05.2018 whereby
the order passed by learned Single Judge was quashed and set
aside and the respondents-State were directed to initiate the
counseling of the original petitioners as early as possible,
however, it was held that candidature of the writ petitioners shall
be considered as per non-para category teacher vacancies subject
to fulfilling the conditions by these appellants-writ petitioners
regarding eligibility criteria for age etc.
IV. One another intra-court appeal, being L.P.A. No. 172 of
2018, was preferred against order dated 01.02.2018 passed in W.P.
(S) No. 178 of 2016 whereby the writ petitioners though had not
applied under reserved category (para category) but were
compelled to be treated as reserved category candidates. The
learned Coordinate Division Bench, taking into consideration the
fact that there is no rule, regulation or Government Circular or
Government Policy that those candidates, who are already
working as Para Teachers, must apply under the reserved category
meant for teachers and further there is no such conditions attached
with the public advertisement in question that those candidates
who are working as Para Teachers must apply for the reserved
category seats meant for Para-Teacher, quashed and set aside the
order passed by learned Single Judge. It has further been held that
it depends upon the confidence of the candidates to apply under
category or not to apply under the reserved category and there is
no bar for such candidates that they cannot apply under the
General Category which is meant for Non-Para Teachers.
V. Thus, it appears from the order passed by learned Single
Judge in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 that learned counsel for the
28
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
petitioners confined their argument only to the legality of
respondents decision to stop the counseling midway. The learned
’
Single Judge in that pretext has passed the order that there shall
only one counselling. Here the learned Single Judge had not
decided the issue of consideration of candidature of para-teachers
under non-para teacher category, if they are otherwise eligible. As
a matter of fact, said issue was decided by learned Co-ordinate
Division Bench in LPA 186 of 2017 with LPA 199 of 2017, which
was allowed vide order dated 11.05.2018 whereby the order
passed by learned Single Judge was quashed and set aside and the
respondents-State were directed to initiate the counseling of the
original petitioners as early as possible, however, it was held that
candidature of the writ petitioners shall be considered as per non-
para category teacher vacancies subject to fulfilling the conditions
by these appellants-writ petitioners regarding eligibility criteria
for age etc.
VI. This Court on consideration of the fact that the issue of
allowing para-teachers has already been decided in LPA NO. 186
of 2017 with LPA No. 199 of 2019 hence if in that circumstances
the learned Single Judge has passed order for consideration of
their candidature by allowing the writ petitions to participate in
the counseling which according to our considering view cannot be
said to suffer from error.
VII. The learned Single Judge is correct and the judicial
discipline warrants that if the issue has been decided by the higher
Coram the same binds the Court having the lesser Coram on the
principle of binding precedence.
Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in the
case of Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Ors., (2008) 10
SCC 1, wherein at paragraphs-84, 86 & 88 it has been held as
under:
4. In State of Bihar vs. Kalika Kuer, the Court elaborately
“8
considered the principle of per incuriam and held that the earlier
judgment by a larger Bench cannot be ignored by invoking the
principle of per incuriam and the only course open to the
coordinate or smaller Bench is to make a request for reference to
the larger Bench.
86. In Central Board of Dwaoodi Bohra Community vs. State of
Maharashtra, the Constitution Bench interpreted Article 141,
referred to various earlier judgments including Bharat Petroleum
Corpn. Ltd. vs. Mumbai Shramik Sangha and Pradip Chandra
Parija vs. Pramod Chandra Patnaik and held that "the law laid
down in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is
binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal strength
and it would be inappropriate if a Division Bench of two Judges
starts overruling the decisions of Division Benches of three
Judges. The Court further held that such a practice would be
detrimental not only to the rule of discipline and the doctrine of
binding precedents but it will also lead to inconsistency in
decisions on the point of law; consistency and certainty in the
development of law and its contemporary status - both would be
immediate casualty (Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra
Community case, SCC p. 682, paras 12 & 10). 88. In U.P. Gram
Panchayat Adhikari Sangh vs. Daya Ram Saroj, the Court noted
that by ignoring the earlier decision of a coordinate Bench, a
Division Bench of the High Court directed that part-time tube-
well operators should be treated as permanent employees with
same service conditions as far as possible and observed: "26.
Judicial discipline is self-discipline. It is an inbuilt mechanism in
the system itself. Judicial discipline demands that when the
29
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
decision of a coordinate Bench of the same High Court is brought
to the notice of the Bench, it is to be respected and is binding,
subject of course, to the right to take a different view or to doubt
the correctness of the decision and the permissible course then
open is to refer the question or the case to a larger Bench. This is
the minimum discipline and decorum to be maintained by judicial
frate
rnity.”
28. The coordinate bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 while
refusing to interfere with the view of the learned writ Court issued
directions as contained in paragraph 57 of the order which is quoted
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
.”
29. This Court finds that a large number of writ petitions were tagged
and taken up together by the learned writ Court and most of the writ
petitions had more than one petitioner. There were primarily three
30
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
categories of petitioners, candidates working as para-teacher and
applied under non-para teacher category; candidates working as para-
teacher and applied under para teacher category; and other candidates
who had applied under non-para teacher category. In the first round
of litigation arising out of the same recruitment process, there were
broadly two categories of writ proceedings: -
a. WPS No. 19 of 2016 with WPS No. 32 of 2016 with the
analogous case where the grievance of the writ petitioners
primarily was that the counseling was stopped mid-way
without filling up all the advertised posts under the different
categories. As discussed above, the writ petitions were allowed
with directions contained in paragraphs 19 and 20 as quoted in
paragraph 12 above clearly directing that one counseling be
done in all the districts simultaneously and the candidates who
were earlier called for counseling shall not participate except
those who were permitted by an order of the Court. The
benefit of the order was directed to be extended to all similarly
situated candidates. The appeal against the judgment was
dismissed on 11.05.2018.
b. Another set of writ petitions were filed by those candidates
who were para-teachers and had applied under non- para
teacher category but their candidature was either rejected on
account of not having applied under the reserved category of
para teacher or they were sought to be treated under reserved
category of para teacher. The writ petitions were dismissed and
the writ order was challenged in LPA No. 186 of 2017 and
other analogous cases wherein it was held that the para
teachers cannot be compelled to apply under the reserved
category of para teacher when they are not seeking any benefit
under the reserved category. The appeal was allowed on
11.05.2018 with a direction to initiate counseling for the
original petitioners. Other batches of appeals were also
disposed of in the same lines and in the writ petition being
WPS No. 2142 of 2019 the benefit granted to para teachers
31
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
applying under non para teacher category vide order passed in
LPA No. 186 of 2017 was extended to all similarly situated
persons.
30. As a follow-up of the aforesaid directions issued by this Court the
appellant State published a resolution dated 02.05.2019 for one
counseling to be conducted at a time in all the districts with the
condition that those persons who were earlier called for counseling
would not be permitted to participate in the counseling process. In
terms of the resolution dated 02.05.2019, counseling was conducted
on 03.06.2019 and several persons were also appointed. Still, many
candidates were not satisfied and filed writ petitions alleging that
though they had applied for several districts but their names were not
included in the counseling list of any of the districts and their specific
grievance was that the candidates having less marks than the writ
petitioners were included in the counseling list , called for appearing
in the counseling and were given appointment in the year 2019 itself
and therefore the candidature of the writ petitioners ought to have
been considered. It was also argued that since the writ petitioners
were never called for counseling therefore their candidature ought to
be considered in terms of Clause 6 (d) of the Resolution / Sankalp
dated 02.05.2019.
31. This Court finds that the learned writ Court has recorded in
paragraphs nos.13 and 17 of the impugned order that the writ
petitioners were never called for counseling based on the
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
writ petitioners in paragraph no. 7 of the impugned order.
32. The learned writ court in paragraphs 14 to 17 of the impugned
judgment while answering the issue framed in paragraph 13 has
taken note of the Resolution dated 02.05.2019 which in turn
mentioned that those candidates who were earlier called for
counseling whether participated or not were not to be called again. It
was also recorded that the State had denied counseling to the writ
petitioners although they had secured more marks than the last
selected candidate and that the writ petitioners were never called for
32
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
counseling. Appropriate directions were issued for one more
counseling since the writ petitioners who were never called for
counseling earlier had obtained more marks than the last selected
candidate they were held entitled to be considered for appointment if
the vacancies were still there and the same had not been advertised as
yet.
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.
33
L.P.A No. 510 of 2023 & analogous cases.
34. These appeals are disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in
L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous cases with further
clarifications/directions as mentioned above.
35. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are closed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.)
I agree.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated:
Binit/Amit
A.F.R.