Jharkhand High Court
Dinesh Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 October, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 JHA 1035
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
W.P.(S) No. 4455 of 2019
----
1.Dinesh Kumar Sharma, aged about 51 years, son of Prahlad Sharma, Assistant Teacher, Utkramit Middle School, Bango, East Singhbhum, resident of Village and P.O. Bagbera, P.S. Bagbera, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur
2.Anil Mardi, aged about 48 years, son of Chetan Mardi, Assistant Teacher, Utkramit Midle School, Dandudih, Patamda, PO and PS Patamda, District East Singhbhum, resident of Village Gorhgram, PO Butgora, PS Potka, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur
3.Kunaram Tudu, aged about 43 years, son of late Jati Tudu, Assistant Teacher, Middle School, Kamalpur, Patamda, PO and PS Patamda, District- East Singhbhum, resident of village and P.O. Gudabanda, P.S. Gudabanda, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur
4.Shamshad Akram, aged about 53 years, son of late Aash Mohammad, Assistant Teacher, Urdu Middle School, Chakulia, PO and PS Chakulia, District East Singhbhum, resident of 234, Purana Purulia Road, Jakir Nagar, PO and PS Mango, District East Singhbhum, at Jamshedpur
5.Niral Seteng Herenj, aged about 47 years, son of Sri Polus Herenj, Assistant Teacher, Utkramit Middle School, Kendua, Dumaria, PO and PS Dumaria, District East Singhbhum, resident of Christian Basti, Parsudih, P.O. Tatanagar, PS Parsudih, District East Singhbhum, at Jamshedpur
6.Mithilesh Kumar Prasad, aged about 57 years, son of late Baldeo Prasad, Assistant Teacher, Utkramit Middle School, Bhuranaghut, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, resident of House NO.25, Cross Road No.3, Road No.1, Adarsh Colony, Mango, Post office Road, P.O. and PS Mango, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur
6.Dinesh Kumar Malakar, aged about 43 years, son of Ram Sweak Malakar, Assistant Teacher, Utkramit High School, Goberghushi, Patamda, PO and PS Patamda, District East Singhbhum, resident of Sarsobari Rajstate, Ghatshila, PO and PS Ghatshila, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur ..... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Telephone Bhawan, Dhurwa, PO Dhurwa, PS-Jagannathpur, District Ranchi
3.Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, PO and PS Sakchi, District East Singhbhum
4.The District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, PO and PS Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum
5.The Regional Education Officer, Jamshedpur, PO and PS Sakchi, District East Singhbhum ...... Respondents
----
2CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate For Resp.-State :- Mr. Aditya Raman, Advocate
----
4/20.10.2020 Heard Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Aditya Raman, the learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. This writ petition has 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.
3. Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that so far as the petitioner nos.1 to 4 are concerned, the grievance of the petitioners has already been redressed, except of the petitioner nos.5 and 6. So far as petitioner no.7 is concerned, he is not interested in pursuing the writ petition. He submits that so far as petitioner nos.5 and 6 are concerned, their transfer has been cancelled. They have made representation before the authority concerned not to disturb them from the place where they are working in view of the fact that they are to retire shortly.
4. In view of the above facts, Mr. Aditya Raman, the learned State counsel submits that the decision has already been taken as the grievance of the petitioner nos.1 to 4 has already been redressed. The order has already been passed for the petitioner nos. 5 and 6.
5. In view of the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner no.7 is not interested thus, there nothing remains in the writ petition.
6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner nos. 5 and 6 are at liberty to file fresh representation before the authority concerned praying therein to consider their claim and the authority concerned shall take a decision in accordance with rules, regulations and the guidelines and pass appropriate order, thus disposes of the instant writ petition [W.P.(S) No. 4455 of 2019].
7. I.As are also disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)