ORDER : 1. Since these appeals arise out of common order/judgment, as such they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. One writ petition, being W.P. (S) No. 2049 of 2022, is also listed along with these batch matters. It appears from order dated 16.08.2022 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2049 of 2022 that on the request made by learned counsel for the parties that since similar matters are pending before the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 203 of 2022 and analogous cases, writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2049 of 2022 was directed to be listed along with LPA No. 203 of 2022 and analogous cases for adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2049 of 2022 has been listed along with these batch matters, as the outcome of the writ petition will depend upon these intra-court appeals. 3. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent, is directed against common order/judgment dated 16.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 2378 of 2019 and batch matters, whereby and whereunder, while disposing of the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge directed 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. It was further directed that 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 the 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. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge in these intra-court appeals. 4. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge in these intra-court appeals. 4. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petitions and annexure appended therewith, is as under. 5. Advertisements for appointment of candidates to the post of Intermediate Trained Teachers in different districts of the State of Jharkhand were published by the Office of District Superintendent of Education of the respective. As per the advertisement, 50% of the posts were required to be filled by Para Teachers and rest 50% seats were to be filled with non-para teacher category candidates. Petitioners, having requisite qualifications, applied for the aforesaid vacancies in their respective para-category and non-para category in different districts of the State of Jharkhand and submitted their certificates. It is stated that their names appeared at the respective districts in the data base cum Merit list. Thereafter, several rounds of counseling were held at all the districts and several candidates were called for counseling and given appointment. 6. However, due to several irregularities, inconsistency and anomalies in the counseling process, several writ petitions were filed before this Court and two of the writ petitions, which are of relevance to adjudicate the lis are being W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 with W.P. (S) No. 32 of 2016 and other analogous cases, were taken up together and the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions vide judgment dated 02.02.2017 directing the respondents-authorities to make appointment according to merit of the candidates on all unfilled advertised vacancies by conducting one time counseling, against which, the respondent-State preferred Letters Patent Appeal, being L.P.A. No. 168 of 2017, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide judgment dated 11.05.2018 with the specific observation to comply the directions as issued by learned Single Judge at paragraphs 19 and 20 of the judgment dated 02.02.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 with W.P. (S) No. 32 of 2016. 7. 7. Simultaneously, on the same day i.e. 11.05.2018 another Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 186 of 2017 with L.P.A. No. 199 of 2017 preferred against the judgment/order dated 02.03.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6031 of 2015 and W.P. (S) No. 173 of 2016 was taken up for consideration by the Hon’ble Division Bench and the same was disposed of directing the respondents-authorities to initiate the counseling of the original petitioners as early as possible so that it can be completed within a period of four months from today and further their candidature shall be considered as per non-para teacher category vacancies subject to fulfilling the conditions by these appellants regarding eligibility criteria for age etc. 8. Further, on 13.05.2019 another two sets of writ petitions, being W.P. (S) No. 2142 of 2019 with analogous cases and W.P. (S) No. 768 of 2019 with analogous cases, were taken up and allowed vide order dated 13.05.2019 holding that in view of order passed in LPA No. 186 of 2017, not only the appellants of the said intra-court appeals but all the writ petitioners need to be given a chance in the counseling processes for the reason that the issue which was in dispute has now been settled and ambiguity as to whether a Para Teacher can apply under Non-para Teacher category has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No. 186 of 2017 and accordingly direction was passed upon the State to include the name of all these writ petitioners also in the counseling process for selection for the post of Assistant Teachers. 9. On the basis of several judicial pronouncements and directions issued by the this Court in writ petitions and intra-court appeals, the State issued “Resolution” on 02.05.2019 stating therein to hold final round of counseling against the remaining vacant seats for each districts in the respective categories (Para category as well as Non Para category). Further, several directions and conditions were issued for counseling in the said “Resolution” dated 02.05.2019. 10. It is the case of the petitioners that thereafter a tentative list was prepared and another round of district wise counseling was conducted. Further, several directions and conditions were issued for counseling in the said “Resolution” dated 02.05.2019. 10. It is the case of the petitioners that thereafter a tentative list was prepared and another round of district wise counseling was conducted. It is stated that though the petitioners had applied for several districts but their names were not included in counseling list for any of the districts, on the contrary, candidates having lesser marks than the petitioners were included in the counseling list and were also called for appearing in the counseling and had been given appointment in the year 2019 itself but the petitioners were left out. 11. Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioners approached this Court by filing series of writ petitions on the ground that 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 as well as non-para category. Further, since the petitioners have secured more marks in the merit list than the candidates who have been appointed in the year 2019 therefore, the candidature of these petitioners ought to have been considered. Since these petitioners were never called for counseling as such their candidature ought to have been considered in terms of Clause 6 of the Resolution/Sankalp dated 02.05.2019. 12. Learned counsel further argued that in light of the direction given in Order dated 13.05.2019 in W.P. (S) No. 768 of 2019 with analogous cases the Respondents ought to have considered the cases of all the candidates depending upon the merit list including the candidates who had not approached the Hon’ble Court. For several districts, the names of 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. 13. Learned counsel has further submitted that in several districts the candidates who have obtained lesser marks than the petitioners have been included in the merit list and called for counseling and appointed after counseling, only on the ground that earlier they had approached before this Hon’ble Court for redressal of their grievances. 14. 13. Learned counsel has further submitted that in several districts the candidates who have obtained lesser marks than the petitioners have been included in the merit list and called for counseling and appointed after counseling, only on the ground that earlier they had approached before this Hon’ble Court for redressal of their grievances. 14. The said ground of the respondent-State is not tenable since a clear-cut observation has been made by this Hon’ble Court that “When this dispute is set at rest, it cannot be said that only those persons, on whose application the issue is resolved, can only get the benefit. Benefit of the decision should be given to all those persons, who are governed by the final judgment.” 15. Learned counsel further submitted that the Respondent State filed Counter Affidavit showing the chart of cut off marks for all the districts of State of Jharkhand and from there it becomes evident that the petitioners are having more marks than the last candidate who have been appointed in their respective categories at their respective districts. 16. While on the other hand, the respondents-State submitted that advertised posts belong to 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 number of candidates appearing in the counselling process. 17. The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, allowed the writ petition, against which the instant intra-court appeals have been preferred. 18. It is evident from the aforesaid factual aspect that in pursuance to “Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Recruitment Rules 2012” advertisements were published, for appointment to the post of Intermediate Trained Teachers in different districts of the State of Jharkhand, by the Office of District Superintendent of Education of the respective districts. As per advertisement, 50% of the seats are required to be filled by Para Teachers and rest 50% seats were to be filled with non-para teacher categories. Petitioners, having requisite qualifications, applied for the aforesaid vacancies in their respective para category and non-para category in different districts of the State of Jharkhand and submitted their certificates. 19. It is alleged that their names have appeared at the respective districts in the data base cum Merit list but they were not finally selected. Petitioners, having requisite qualifications, applied for the aforesaid vacancies in their respective para category and non-para category in different districts of the State of Jharkhand and submitted their certificates. 19. It is alleged that their names have appeared at the respective districts in the data base cum Merit list but they were not finally selected. In the meanwhile, due to several irregularities, inconsistency and anomalies in the counseling process, several writ applications were filed before this Court. 20. The first set of writ petitions, which are of relevance for adjudication of lis herein and upon which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the parties are W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 and other analogous cases, which was allowed vide judgment dated 02.02.2017 by the learned Single Judge directing the respondents-authorities to make appointment according to merit of the candidates on all unfilled advertised vacancies by conducting one time counseling. 21. Being aggrieved with the order passed by learned Single Judge, the respondent-State preferred Letters Patent Appeal, being L.P.A. No. 168 of 2017, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide Judgment dated 11.05.2018. 22. Another set of Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 186 of 2017 with L.P.A. No. 199 of 2017 was preferred by the writ petitioners-appellants which was disposed of directing the Respondents-authorities to initiate the counseling of the original petitioners as early as possible and further it was held that their candidature shall be considered as per non-para teacher category vacancies subject to fulfilling the conditions by these appellants regarding eligibility criteria for age etc. 23. 23. It further appears that two sets of writ petitions being W.P. (S) No. 2142 of 2019 with analogous cases and W.P. (S) No. 768 of 2019 with analogous cases, were allowed vide order 13.05.2019 holding that in view of order passed in LPA No. 186 of 2017, not only the appellants of the said LPA but all the writ petitioners need to be given a chance in the counseling processes for the reason that the issue which was in dispute has now been settled and ambiguity as to whether a Para Teacher can apply under Non-para Teacher category has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No. 186 of 2017 and accordingly direction was passed upon the State to include the name of all these writ petitioners also in the counseling process for selection for the post of Assistant Teachers. 24. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Jharkhand taking into consideration the judicial pronouncements, as mentioned above and directions issued by the this Court in writ petitions and intra-court appeals, issued “Resolution” on 02.05.2019 stating therein to hold final round of counseling against the remaining vacant seats for each districts in the respective categories (Para category as well as Non Para category). 25. It is the case of the petitioners that though the petitioners applied for several districts but their names were not included in counseling list of any of the districts, however, names of candidates having lesser marks than the petitioners were included in the counseling list and were also called for appearing in the counseling and had been given appointment in the year 2019 itself. 26. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners approached this Court by filing series of writ petitions on the ground that 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 as well as non-para category. Since the petitioners have secured more marks in the merit list than the candidates who have been appointed in the year 2019 therefore, the candidature of these petitioners ought to have been considered. 27. Since the petitioners have secured more marks in the merit list than the candidates who have been appointed in the year 2019 therefore, the candidature of these petitioners ought to have been considered. 27. The learned Single Judge has considered the rival submissions advanced by the parties and taking into consideration the order passed by Co-ordiante Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 186 of 2017 wherein it has been decided by directing the State for inviting the petitioners as one time measure even the candidate who are under para category and are willing to participate in the counseling under non-para category. The learned Single Judge taking note of order passed by this Court in LPA No. 186 of 2017 has allowed all the writ petitions. 28. The order passed by learned Single Judge is under challenge before this Court. 29. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned AAG-II appearing for the appellant-State has submitted that the order passed by learned Single Judge, which is impugned in these appeals, is contrary to the order passed by Co-ordinate learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016, wherein it has been made clear that there shall be only one round of counseling in all the districts of the State. 30. Further, the candidates who were earlier called for counseling shall not be called for counseling except, those permitted by order of the Court. 31. The ground has been taken that the aforesaid order has been affirmed by Division Bench of this Court but the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions has not appreciated those facts by taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment in the similar circumstances. 32. It has further been submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that resolution dated 02.05.2019 issued in pursuance of the guidelines issued by this Court that the candidates who were previously called for counseling would not be invited for counseling. 33. Hence, the order passed by learned Single Judge, which is impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law. 34. Per contra, Mr. 33. Hence, the order passed by learned Single Judge, which is impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law. 34. Per contra, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel assisted by other counsel appearing for the writ petitioners has defended the order passed by learned Single Judge wherein the learned Single Judge has considered the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016, which has been affirmed in L.P.A. No. 168 of 2017. 35. It has submitted that if the facts of the case of W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 will be considered which has been filed on behalf of candidates under para-teachers category and in that circumstances this Court has passed order that even if the vacancy remains a candidate will have only one chance to participate in the process of counseling. But the learned Co-ordinate Division Bench, the day when the order passed by learned Co-ordinate Single Bench in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 has affirmed the said order by dismissing the intra-court appeal being LPA No. 168 of 2017, has also decided an issue on the same day in LPA No. 186 of 2017 with LPA No. 199 of 2017, wherein order passed in W.P. (S) No. 6031 of 2015 and W.P. (S) No. 173 of 2016 was under challenge, in which the Co-ordinate learned Division Bench while disposing of the said LPAs has directed the respondent to consider the application of candidates working as para teacher category even if they fall under non-para category. 36. Learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners on the basis of order passed in W.P. (S) No. 6031 of 2015 with W.P. (S) No. 173 of 2016, wherein opportunity has been provided for consideration of the candidature of para teachers under non-para teacher category which has been affirmed vide order dated 11.05.2018 passed in LPA No. 186 of 2017 with LPA No. 199 of 2017, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has considered the order passed in LPA No. 186 of 2017 with LPA No. 199 of 2017 and accordingly allowed the writ petition by directing the respondents to provide a chance of counseling under non-para category. 37. The learned senior counsel on the basis of aforesaid ground has submitted that the order passed by learned Single Judge suffers from no error. 38. 37. The learned senior counsel on the basis of aforesaid ground has submitted that the order passed by learned Single Judge suffers from no error. 38. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record and finding recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 39. The facts, which are not in dispute, is that the petitioners, who were working as para-teachers in the different districts of the State of Jharkhand, in pursuance to the advertisement published for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers, applied under para and non-para category. 40. It is pertinent to note here that the said advertisement was published in pursuance to “Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Recruitment Rules 2012” wherein it was decided to fill 50% seats amongst para teacher category and rest 50% from non-para teacher category. From plain reading of Rules, 2012, it is evident that the Rules, 2012 nowhere put embargo upon the para teacher category candidate to apply under non-para teacher for consideration of their candidature if they are otherwise eligible to apply for the same as per eligibility criteria fixed for non-para teacher category i.e. without granting any relaxation; meaning thereby if a candidate belonging to para-teacher category and intends to apply under non-para category, such candidate has to fulfill the eligibility criteria of non-para category and no relaxation of age etc. of para category would be given to such candidate. 41. It is the case of the writ petitioners that though they belong to para-teacher category but having fulfilled the eligibility criteria of non-para teacher category applied for consideration of their candidature under non-para teacher category. 42. It is further case of the petitioners that in initial round of counseling though they could not come in the zone of consideration but later on when they reached for counseling they were not allowed to participate on the ground that the petitioners are falling under para teacher and having applied under non-para category as such they are not entitled for counseling under non-para category. 43. It is stated that thereafter, several rounds of counseling were held in all the districts and several candidates were called for counseling and were given appointment but the petitioners were left. 44. 43. It is stated that thereafter, several rounds of counseling were held in all the districts and several candidates were called for counseling and were given appointment but the petitioners were left. 44. It further appears from the pleading available on record that due to several irregularities, inconsistency and anomalies in the counseling process, several writ applications were filed before this Court and two of the writ petitions, which are of relevance to adjudicate the lis are being W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 with W.P. (S) No. 32 of 2016 and other analogous cases which were taken up together and the learned Single Judge after hearing learned counsel for the parties allowed the writ petitions vide judgment dated 02.02.2017 directing the respondents-authorities to make appointment according to merit of the candidates on all unfilled advertised vacancies by conducting one time counseling. 45. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the judgment is 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 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 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 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 counselling. (iii) The name of candidates falling under zone of consideration as indicated in clause (ii) above shall be put on the web-site, atleast 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.” 46. 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.” 46. Against order dated 02.02.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 and analogous cases, the State preferred intra-court appeal being LPA No. 168 of 2017, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.05.2018 affirming the order passed by learned Single Judge. For ready reference, paragraph 7 and 8 of the judgment is quoted as under: “7. Further, there are large number of vacancies still left, viz. out of total number of advertised vacancies of 10,000, 3832 vacancies are still unfilled. Thus, no prejudice will be caused to the appellant, if direction, given in Paragraph 19 and 20 of order dated 2nd February, 2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016, is complied by the appellant State. On the contrary, it appears that State is given one more chance to perform its duties. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition vide order dated 2nd February, 2017. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and same is, hereby, dismissed. We, therefore, direct the Secretary, School Education and Literacy Development Department, Government of Jharkhand to complete the exercise of counselling 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 from today.” 47. We, therefore, direct the Secretary, School Education and Literacy Development Department, Government of Jharkhand to complete the exercise of counselling 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 from today.” 47. It further appears the learned Co-ordinate Division Bench, on the same date i.e. on 11.05.2018 allowed the Letters Patent Appeals being L.P.A. No. 186 of 2017 with L.P.A. No. 199 of 2017 filed by the writ petitioners-appellants against the judgment dated 02.03.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6031 of 2015 and W.P. (S) No. 173 of 2016, wherein issue was that though the petitioners have not applied under reserved category they were compelled to be treated as reserved category candidates on the ground that writ petitioners since were working as para-teachers they must apply and they shall be deemed to have applied under reserved category meant for para-teachers. 48. The Co-ordinate Division Bench while allowing the intra-court appeal directed the Respondents-authorities to initiate the counseling of the original petitioners as early as possible so that it can be completed within a period of four months from today and further their candidature shall be considered as per non-para teacher category vacancies subject to fulfilling the conditions by these appellants regarding eligibility criteria for age etc. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph 8 and 9 of the judgment is quoted as under: “8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, we, hereby, quash and set aside the common judgment and order dated 2nd March, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P. (S) No. 6031 of 2015 and W.P. (S) No. 173 of 2016. 9. 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. These appellants shall approach or remain present before the Dy. Commissioner of the concerned District, as early as possible and practicable, within a period of 12 weeks from today and if they are approaching the Dy. These appellants shall approach or remain present before the Dy. Commissioner of the concerned District, as early as possible and practicable, within a period of 12 weeks from today and if they are approaching the Dy. Commissioner of the concerned district, within a further period of two months thereafter, the counselling exercise will be completed and their candidature shall be considered as per Non-Para Teacher category vacancies subject to fulfilling the conditions by these appellants regarding eligibility criteria for age etc.” 49. It further requires to refer herein the order passed by Co-ordinate Division Bench in LPA No. 172 of 2018, preferred by writ petitioners-appellants which was allowed vide order dated 23.07.2018. The said intra-court appeal was preferred against order passed in W.P. (S) No. 178 of 2016 whereby these appellants though have not applied under reserved category were compelled to be treated as reserved category candidates. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the judgment passed in LPA No. 172 of 2018 is quoted as under: “12. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, we, hereby, quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 1st February, 2018, passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P. (S) No. 178 of 2016. 13. 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. These appellants shall approach or remain present before the Dy. Commissioner of the concerned District, as early as possible and practicable, within a period of 12 weeks from today and if they are approaching the Dy. Commissioner of the concerned district, within a further period of two months thereafter, the counselling exercise will be completed and their candidature shall be considered as per Non-Para Teacher category vacancies subject to fulfilling the conditions by these appellants regarding eligibility criteria for age etc.” 50. It appears that some aggrieved para-teachers again approached this Court by filing series of writ petitions which were clubbed together being W.P. (S) No. 2142 of 2019 and analogous cases, which was disposed of directing the respondents-State to include the name of those petitioners also in the counseling process for selection of Assistant Teachers. For ready reference, the relevant portion of order passed by learned Single Judge is quoted as under: “2. For ready reference, the relevant portion of order passed by learned Single Judge is quoted as under: “2. In view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 186 of 2017, this Court feels that not only the appellants of the said L.P.A. but all the writ petitioners also need to be given a chance in the counselling processes. This is for the reason that the issue, which was in dispute, has now been settled and the ambiguity as to whether a Para Teacher can apply under Non-Para Teacher category has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 186 of 2017. 3. Further, I find that several similar orders have been passed in L.P.A. Nos. 347 of 2018, 433 of 2018 etc. All the writ petitioners are governed by the principle which has been laid down in the judgment passed in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals. Thus, this Court feels that all these writ petitioners are entitled to get the similar benefit. 4. Thus, I direct the State to include the name of all these writ petitioners also in the counselling process for selection of Assistant Teachers. 5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, these entire writ applications stands allowed in terms of the order passed in L.P.A. Nos. 186 of 2017, 347 of 2018 and 433 of 2018.” 51. The case of the petitioners herein is that the petitioners, admittedly working as para-teachers, applied under the non-para category fulfilling all the eligibility critera of non-para category, but were restrained from participating in counseling, as such common prayer was made for direction upon the respondents to consider their candidature in their respective categories i.e. para and non-para category, for the districts for which they have applied against the vacant seats of Intermediate Trained Teachers. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties, allowed the writ petition. Relevant portion of judgment is quoted as under: “18. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, 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. Relevant portion of judgment is quoted as under: “18. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, 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 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. 20. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all these writ petitions stand allowed.” 52. Aggrieved thereof, the respondents-State has preferred intra-Court appeals, which were clubbed together and are under challenge before this Court. 53. Learned counsel for the State-appellant by referring to the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 (affirmed in LPA No. 168 of 2017) has submitted that in the order passed by learned Single Judge being confirmed by learned Division Bench of this Court, it has clearly been directed that there shall be only one counseling in all the districts of the State but the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the direction as passed in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016. 54. 54. It has further been submitted that the learned Single Judge has further failed to consider that learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 (affirmed in LPA No. 168 of 2017) has clearly 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. 55. It has further been submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that resolution dated 02.05.2019 issued in pursuance of the guidelines issued by this Court that the candidates who were previously called for counseling would not be invited for counseling. 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, begin 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 Co-ordinate 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 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 No. 186 of 2017 with LPA No. 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 Others, (2008) 10 SCC 1 , wherein at paragraphs-84, 86 and 88 it has been held as under: “84. In State of Bihar vs. Kalika Kuer, the Court elaborately 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 Corporation 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 and 10). 88. 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 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 fraternity.” 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. (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. 58. With the aforesaid observations and directions, these intra-court appeals fail and are dismissed. 59. In consequence of dismissal of intra-court appeals, the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2049 of 2022 stands allowed. 60. Pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.