JUDGMENT : (Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.) 1) This matter has been listed under the heading for orders with defect. It is evident from the office note that altogether five defects have been pointed out. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that so far as defect nos.1 and 4 are concerned, they are relating to serving copy of the writ petition to respondent No.6 and certifying the annexures to be true copies respectively, which he will be doing in course of the day. 3) Let it be done in course of the day. The said defects stand removed for the present. 4) Defect Nos.2 and 3 are with respect to filing of fresh copies/typed copies of the relevant documents. We have gone through the relevant documents and considering the same to be legible, the defects relating to filing of fresh copies/typed copies are hereby ignored. 5) So far as the defect no.5 pertaining to deficit court-fee is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the issue with respect to the same has already been considered by this Court while passing order dated 19.12.2022 in I.A. No.9194 of 2022 arising out of W.P. (S) No. 3437 of 2019 along with other batch cases including W.P. (C) No. 215 of 2018, in which the Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed that that since the nature of dispute is common, hence only one Court Fee is required to be filed. He has further submitted that due to inadvertence, he could not file even one set of court-fee, which he will be filing in course of the day. 6) Perused the order dated 19.12.2022 passed in I.A. No.9194 of 2022 arising out of W.P. (S) No. 3437 of 2019 and other batches cases including W.P. (C) No. 215 of 2018. Since the issue with respect to court-fee has already been decided and only one set of court-fee is required to be filed, defect No.5 pointed out in the instant writ petition is also ignored, subject to filing of one set of court-fee by the petitioners in course of the day. Since the issue with respect to court-fee has already been decided and only one set of court-fee is required to be filed, defect No.5 pointed out in the instant writ petition is also ignored, subject to filing of one set of court-fee by the petitioners in course of the day. 7) Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the defects have been ignored/removed and similar matter has already been decided by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 215 of 2018 and other batch cases vide judgment dated 19th December, 2022, this writ petition may also be disposed of in terms thereof. 8) Considering the said submission, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties on merits of the case also. 9) This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking for the following reliefs:- (a) To quash the part of notification no.1632 dated 05.09.2102 (Annexure-1) containing the Rules framed by Department of Human Resource Development, Govt. of Jharkhand regarding appointment of teachers and instructors in elementary schools coming under Directorate of Education, Department of HRD, since the same being ultra-vires of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India as because no provision has been made for regularization of service of such Para Teachers and Assistant Teachers who are well qualified having TET certificate and have been discharging the duties for the last 10-15 years in different government Schools. (b) Further to quash the part of notification no.1348 dated 13.02.2025 (Annexure-5) issued by Department of Personnel, Government of Jharkhand by which a Rule in exercise of power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India has been framed regarding regularization of service of all such employees under State Government who have irregularly been appointed and working for the last 10 years on or before 07.10.2006 (cutoff date), while respondents framing the rule not taken into consideration that no irregularly appointed employees of the State of Jharkhand could ever be regularized since that State came into existence only on 15.11.2000 and the cut off date was fixed as 01.01.2004. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & others versus State of Jharkhand in Civil Appeal No.-7423-29 in 2018 arises out of S.L.P. No.-19832-32 of 2017 reported in (2018)8 SCC 238 also held that the regularization Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and observed that if irregularly appointed employee completed 10 years of services on the date of promulgation of regulation rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years service they should be regularized. (c) For issuance of appropriate direction upon the respondents authority to regularize the appointment/services of the petitioners (para teachers) as per their seniority whereby these Para Teachers who were appointed by the concerned District Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner for teaching in the schools of Jharkhand from block to district level after duly passing the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) examination conducted by Jharkhand Academic Council and they are rendering their services for the last 5 to 15 years in Govt. Schools in Class I to Class V & Class VI to Class VIII, while also considering the facts that around 1,00,000 vacancies of Assistant Teachers are there in different schools of Jharkhand from Primary to Middle Level in all 24 districts and moreover other States have not only taken a policy decision with respect to regularization of service of Para Teachers but even regularized also. (d) For issuance of appropriate direction upon the Respondents authorities to regularize the petitioners against the sanctioned post and on the vacant post of Assistant Teachers since they have validly been appointed by the concerned Deputy Commissioner / Chairman District Education Committee and moreover completed more than 10 years of uninterrupted service. (e) The petitioner issuance of further pray appropriate for directions upon the respondents authorities to pay them on the principle of equal pay for equal work the salary and other benefits at par with other Assistant Teachers working in different Govt. schools while appreciating the fact that these petitioners as Para Teachers are discharging same nature of job, having same qualification but are getting honorarium. 10) Learned counsel for the parties have jointly pointed out that similar issue of regularization of Para Teachers has been decided in by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 215 of 2018 and other batch cases vide judgment dated 19th December, 2022. 10) Learned counsel for the parties have jointly pointed out that similar issue of regularization of Para Teachers has been decided in by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 215 of 2018 and other batch cases vide judgment dated 19th December, 2022. 11) This Court has perused the judgment dated 19th December, 2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 215 of 2018 and other batch cases and the taking into consideration the fact that similar issue has already been dealt with and decided, hence, this Court is of the view that that writ petition can also be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. 12) Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 19th December, 2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 215 of 2018 and other batch cases. 13) Office is directed to issue certified copy of this judgment only after deposit of defect court-fee as directed hereinabove.