JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Debarsi Mondal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. Heard Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.5. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief : (a) For issuance of appropriate direction upon the respondent authorities to hold and conduct fresh counseling by inviting the petitioners for counseling for their appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in their respective districts on the seats, lying vacant both in para as well as non-para categories while considering: i. The Petitioners are para-teachers. ii. The Petitioners had submitted their application against quota of vacancy earmarked for para category teachers as indicated in Jharkhand Primary School Teachers appointment rules 2012 (amended time to time) and the advertisement issue by different district for making appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in Class I to V and VI to VIII. iii. Whereas several other para teachers who had applied in nonpara category and who were not allowed to participate in counseling initially despite their name figured in the merit list had approached the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court and the Hon'ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 186/2017 and L.P.A. No. 199/2017 hold that the para-teachers who have applied in non para category is entitled for their counseling and thus directed the concerned authority to complete the process of their counselling in non-para category, in compliance of which the respondents have done counselling on 03.06.2019 and as per the information of the petitioners still several seats in para as well as non para categories are lying vacant. iv. The Petitioners who on account of specific clause in the rules and advertisement had confined their applications only in para-category due to which the para-teacher who applied in non-para category and secured lesser mark than the petitioners were invited for fresh counseling in the light of the order of the Hon'ble Court and going to be appointed. iv. The Petitioners who on account of specific clause in the rules and advertisement had confined their applications only in para-category due to which the para-teacher who applied in non-para category and secured lesser mark than the petitioners were invited for fresh counseling in the light of the order of the Hon'ble Court and going to be appointed. (b) For issuance of appropriate direction upon the respondent authorities showing them cause as to why the respondents after order of the Hon'ble Division Bench have not come out with any device to redress the bonafide grievance of the petitioners who followed the rules/terms of the advertisement but now being made to suffer as those para-teachers with lesser marks are going to be appointed through fresh counseling in non-para category. (c) To hold and declare that the petitioners who had applied in para category are also entitled for the appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers despite they applied only in para-category in as much as, the petitioners also fulfils all the criteria laid down under the Jharkhand Primary School Teachers Appointment Rules 2012 (as amended upto date) but shockingly those para-teachers having applied a non-para category is going to be appointed despite securing lesser marks then those para teachers who strictly as per rules/advertisement confined their candidature in para category. (d) For issuance of appropriate direction upon the respondents to furnish the details of seats lying vacant both in para as well as non para category in all the districts of Jharkhand and further to direct them to adjust these petitioners against the posts lying vacant both in para and non-para category.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had applied under the para teacher category, but ultimately, they were not selected. Learned counsel submits that a judgment has been passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 2378 of 2019 for enabling the various other persons to participate in the counselling and accordingly, similar order may be passed in the present case also. 6. In response, the learned counsel for the respondents has distinguished the facts of the present case and has referred to the counter-affidavit and submits that the marks etc. of the petitioners has been mentioned in para 15 of the counter-affidavit and the present petitioners have secured less marks and therefore, they were ultimately not selected in their respective category. 6. In response, the learned counsel for the respondents has distinguished the facts of the present case and has referred to the counter-affidavit and submits that the marks etc. of the petitioners has been mentioned in para 15 of the counter-affidavit and the present petitioners have secured less marks and therefore, they were ultimately not selected in their respective category. He submits that as per the judgment passed in W.P.(S). No.2378 of 2019 and other analogous cases, the petitioners were those who were never called for counselling and they had obtained more marks than the candidates whose name figured in the select list and were held entitled to be considered for appointment if the vacancies were still there and the same has not been advertised as yet. The case of the present petitioners is distinguishable and no relief can be granted to the petitioners. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that in W.P.(S) No.2378 of 2019 and other analogous cases, at para 17 of the said judgment, it has been categorically held that petitioners of the said case were the persons who had obtained more marks than the candidates whose names figured in the select list but were never called for counselling and it was held that they were entitled to be considered for appointment if the vacancies were still there and the same has not been advertised as yet. It was also observed that the ambiguity, as to whether para teachers can apply under non-para category, has already been set at rest in L.P.A. No.186 of 2017. The petitioners of W.P.(S) No.2378 of 2019 were to be called for one time counselling by way of last opportunity considering the fact that it was the specific case of the petitioners in W.P.(S) No.2378 of 2019 and other analogous cases that persons having less marks than the petitioners of the said case were included in the counselling list. 8. The petitioners of this case, who are para teachers had applied under para category, secured less marks and therefore, they were ultimately not selected in their respective category. Accordingly, this Court finds that the present case is not covered by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.2378 of 2019 (Paras Nath Mandal Versus The state of Jharkhand and others) and other analogous cases. Accordingly, this Court finds that the present case is not covered by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.2378 of 2019 (Paras Nath Mandal Versus The state of Jharkhand and others) and other analogous cases. This court is of the considered view that the case of the present petitioners is also not covered by the judgement passed in LPA No.186 of 2017 (Pawan Singh Choudhary and others Versus The State of Jharkhand and others) where the para teachers had applied under non para category and were not called for counselling only for the reason that they being para teachers could not have applied under non para category. The said reason was held to be bad in law. Para 3 and 4 of the aforesaid judgement is quoted as under as follows:- “3. It appears that appellants (original petitioners) are working as Para Teachers, but, they have not applied under the reserved category meant for para teachers. They have applied under non-Para Teachers category candidate for the districts they have been selected. Thus, the districts they have applied for the post of Assistant Teachers and the districts for which they have been selected are the districts in which they have applied for under non-Para Teacher category. 4. It appears from the arguments canvassed by the State of Jharkhand that as the original petitioners are working as Para Teachers they must apply or they shall be deemed to have applied, under reserved category quota for Para Teachers. This argument cannot be accepted for the following reasons: (a) 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 para teachers. (b) There is no such condition 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 Teachers. (c) There is no circular issued by the Respondent State of Jharkhand that those who are working as Para Teachers and applying for the post of Assistant Teachers must apply as reserved category of Para Teachers. (c) There is no circular issued by the Respondent State of Jharkhand that those who are working as Para Teachers and applying for the post of Assistant Teachers must apply as reserved category of Para Teachers. (d) On the contrary, it depends upon the confidence of the candidate to apply under reserved 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. (e) Thus, it appears that those, who have applied for a particular district as non-Para Teacher category candidate, they are confident enough not take advantage of the age relaxation or any other type of relaxation meant for the Para Teachers given by the Government. (f) Thus, the appellants (original petitioners of both the writ petitioners) were confident enough to have applied without taking any relaxation meant for Para Teachers and they have been selected for those districts for which they have applied. Even otherwise also, they have cleared Teachers Eligibility Test and they are seeking employment on the basis of their own merit without availing relaxation or concession of the quota meant for Para Teachers. Thus, it appears that the original petitioners are confident candidates and unnecessarily the State of Jharkhand is considering them as candidates under reserved category meant for Para Teachers. This is not permissible in the eye of law.” 9. Accordingly, neither the case of the petitioners is covered by the judgment dated 16.02.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No.2378 of 2019 and other analogous cases nor their case is covered by the judgement dated 11.05.2018 passed in LPA No.186 of 2017 and other analogous cases. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. 10. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed.