Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2429 (JHR)

Ashutosh Kumar Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2018-11-01

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that already the defects, as pointed out by the office have been removed and as such, no defects, as pointed by the office exist as on today. 2. Heard the parties. 3. Petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to allow them to participate in counselling for appointment to the post of Inter Trained Teacher under Non Para Category in the different districts of State of Jharkhand. Further prayer has been made to offer letter of appointment to the petitioners to the post of Inter Trained Teacher. 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the short fact of the case is that the petitioners were working as para-teacher in the different districts in the State of Jharkhand. Pursuant to Advertisement No. 04/2015 floated for appointment to the post of Inter Trained Teachers for Class-I to V, the petitioners having the requisite qualifications, applied for the same under non-para category. In the advertisement itself it has been mentioned that 50% vacancies were reserved for para teachers whereas, rest of the vacancies were earmarked for non-para category candidates and as such, there was no restriction to para-teacher to apply under non-para category. It is the case of the petitioner that they successfully competed in the recruitment process and their name appeared in the merit list and they were called for counselling for the purpose of verification of their testimonials and educational certificates. But on that fateful date, they were not allowed to participate in the counseling and were informed that their candidatures has been cancelled on the ground that they have applied and qualified under the non-para category suppressing the fact that they actually belong to para-teacher category. Aggrieved thereto, the petitioners have approached this Court for redressal of their grievances. 5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this writ application is squarely covered by the order passed on 11.05.2018 by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in L.P.A. No. 186 of 2017 (Pawan Singh Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and another case. Learned counsel further submits that this case may be disposed of in terms of orders passed in the aforesaid case. 6. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and another case. Learned counsel further submits that this case may be disposed of in terms of orders passed in the aforesaid case. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for appearing on behalf of the respondent-State very fairly submits that issues involved in this writ petition has already been decided on 11.05.2018 by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in L.P.A. No. 186 of 2017 (Pawan Singh Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and another case and the present writ petition may be disposed of in view of order passed in above mentioned cases. Learned counsel further argues that fresh counseling can only be organized if sufficient number of vacancies exists and in case of no vacancy pursuant to advertisement in question, it is not possible for the State to take steps for fresh counseling of these petitioners. 7. In view of the fair submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ application is being disposed of in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in L.P.A. No. 186 of 2017 (Pawan Singh Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and another case and if the cases of the present petitioners are found same and similar to the cases of the petitioners in L.P.A. No. 186 of 2017 (Pawan Singh Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and another case and if the seats are lying vacant, the present petitioners are also entitled for the same benefits. The Division Bench of the this Hon’ble Court in L.P.A. No. 186 of 2017 has held that, “We, hereby, direct the respondent-State to initiate the counselling of the original petitioners, as early as, possible and practicable, so that it can be completed within a period of four months from today.” 8. Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondent-authorities to verify the factual aspects/ issues involved in the present writ petition vis-à-vis factual aspects/ issues involved in L.P.A. No. 186 of 2017 (Pawan Singh Choudhary & Ors. Vs. Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondent-authorities to verify the factual aspects/ issues involved in the present writ petition vis-à-vis factual aspects/ issues involved in L.P.A. No. 186 of 2017 (Pawan Singh Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and another case and if the facts/ issues involved in the present writ petition is found to be similar to the aforementioned cases, the same benefits may be extended to the present writ petitioners also, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.