Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2654 (JHR)

Mukesh Arya v. State of Jharkhand

2018-12-05

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, B.B.MANGALMURTI, B.B.MANGALMURTI

body2018
JUDGMENT : Aniruddha Bose, J. I.A. No. 9699 of 2018 This Interlocutory Application is for condonation of delay of 124 days in filing the appeal. We have gone through the application for condonation of delay and find that there was sufficient cause for which the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time. We, accordingly, condone the delay of 124 days in filing the appeal. I.A. No. 9699 of 2018 stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 401 of 2018 1. The department has pointed out in the list of defects that the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were not parties in the writ petition itself. They are educational officers of the State Government and learned Advocate appearing for the State also agrees to appear on their behalf. 2. In such circumstances, in our view, the said defect stands cured. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The appellant’s plea for being permitted to participate in the selection process for the posts of Assistant Teachers through the general category has been rejected by the learned First Court on the ground that the appellant was Para Teacher. A Bench decision of this Court in the case of Pawan Singh Choudhary and others Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others (L.P.A. No. 186 of 2017) delivered on 11th May, 2018, has found the issue in favour of the applicant para-teachers in that case in a near identical situation. We enquired from the learned counsel for the State as to whether the aforesaid Bench decision was appealed against or not and he answered in the negative. Learned counsel for the State could not bring to our notice any distinguishing feature involved in this appeal which could have had persuaded us to take a different view. In such circumstances, the points raised in this appeal stand squarely covered by the Bench decision in favour of the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted before us that the application of his client was made in terms of the Rules prescribed for the general category candidates and his client did not obtain any benefit specially preserved for “Para Teachers” category. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted before us that the application of his client was made in terms of the Rules prescribed for the general category candidates and his client did not obtain any benefit specially preserved for “Para Teachers” category. 6. We accordingly, set aside the decision of the learned First Court, which is under appeal, and direct the respondent-State to initiate counselling of the appellant as early as possible so that the same can be completed within a period of four months from today. 7. The appellant shall approach or remain present before the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district on any working day not later than 12 weeks from today and if he approaches the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district, the counselling exercise shall be completed within the period prescribed by us. 8. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms, without any order as to costs.