JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shubham Mishra, Mr. Manish Mishra and Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsels for the respondent-State. 2. These writ petitions have been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard on merit. 3. The facts of these writ petitions are differing and that is why separate orders have been passed in all the writ petitions. 4. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents, particularly respondent No. 5 to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner for the post of Driver cum Mechanic, Category-ST selected in Group-C in Industrial Training Institution, State of Jharkhand. 5. At the very outset, Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed on 27.07.2017 by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 702 of 2016 (Ravi Shankar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.). He further submits that this case may be disposed of in terms of order passed in the aforesaid case. 6. Mr. Shubham Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the Director General of Employment & Training, Government of India, New Delhi has deleted 20 trade including Driver cum Mechanic trade vide letter dated 04.07.2014. However, the selection process was completed in the year 2011 and at that time, the trade in which the petitioner has obtained the certificate was there. He further submits that the issues involved in this writ petition has already been decided by the Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 702 of 2016 and the present writ petition may be disposed of in view of the order passed in above mentioned case. 7. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ application is being disposed of in terms of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 702 of 2016 and if the case of the present petitioner is found to be same and similar to the case of the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 702 of 2016, the present petitioner is also entitled for the same benefits. 8. 8. Accordingly, respondent No. 5 is directed to verify the factual aspects/ issues involved in the present writ petition vis-a-vis factual aspects/ issues involved in W.P.(S) No. 702 of 2016 and if the facts/issues involved in the present writ petition is found to be similar to the aforementioned writ petition, the same benefits may be extended to the present writ petitioner also, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4686 of 2018 stands disposed of. W.P. (S) No. 286 of 2018 10. It has been pointed out by Mr. Shubham Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent-State that the case of the petitioner has already been rejected. 11. At this stage, Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to challenge the said rejection order by way of filing interlocutory application. He seeks four weeks' time. Post this matter after four weeks. W.P. (S) No. 4594 of 2017 12. It has been pointed out by Mr. Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent-State that the case of the petitioner has already been rejected. 13. At this stage, Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to challenge the said rejection order by way of filing interlocutory application. He seeks four weeks' time. 14. Post this matter after four weeks. W.P. (S) No. 6206 of 2017 15. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon respondent no.5 to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner for the post of Electrician Instructor in BC-I Category selected in Group-C in Industrial Training Institution, State of Jharkhand. 16. Briefly stated, an Advertisement was issued on 08.09.2009 for appointment on non-gazetted post in Group-C through Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination. Total number of advertised vacancies under different trades was 504. The petitioner applied for the post of Electrician Instructor. He was declared successful in the written examination and thereafter, called for counselling, in which he participated and completed all the formalities. However, he was not appointed. In the meanwhile, several appointments were made from the list of successful candidates who had qualified in the written test and were called for counselling. He was declared successful in the written examination and thereafter, called for counselling, in which he participated and completed all the formalities. However, he was not appointed. In the meanwhile, several appointments were made from the list of successful candidates who had qualified in the written test and were called for counselling. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have pleaded that the department has already started the process for fresh recruitment of Instructors and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner was not considered. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to letter for appointment dated 21.05.2014 submits that several similarly situated persons were appointed, however, the claim of the petitioner who was found suitable, has been illegally withheld. He further submits that similarly situated other persons have approached this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5449 of 2015 and other allied matters, which were allowed by this Court vide order dated 15.12.2016 and thereafter some of them have joined the service. He also submits that the case of the petitioner is also fully covered in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 702 of 2016, dated 27.07.2017. He also submits that this writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 5449 of 2015 and other allied matters and W.P. (S) No. 702 of 2016, granting similar benefits to the petitioner. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent-State fairly submits that the case of the petitioner is covered in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5449 of 2015 and other allied matters and in W.P. (S) No. 702 of 2016. He further submits that he has got no objection if this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the orders passed in the aforesaid cases. 19. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts that similarly issue has already been decided by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5449 of 2015 and other allied matters and in W.P. (S) No. 702 of 2016 with detailed reasons and since this writ petition is also covered by the said decision, this writ petition is being disposed of in terms therein. 20. 20. In view of the above facts, the case of the petitioner should be considered and it is hereby ordered that subject to fulfillment of other conditions, if any, respondent no.2 i.e. the Secretary, Labour Employment and Training Department, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi shall issue necessary order for appointment of the petitioner in his respective category, on the post for which he was selected. Needless to say that the entire exercise should be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 21. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.