Jharkhand High Court
Soni Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 21 September, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 JHA 550
Author: H.C. Mishra
Bench: H. C. Mishra, Shree Chandrashekhar, Deepak Roshan
W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017
and analogous matters
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (C) No. 1387 of 2017
With
[I. A. Nos. 5118 of 2019, 8077 of 2019, 8438 of 2019, 9795 of 2019, 10005 of 2019, 10064
of 2019, 10073 of 2019, 10074 of 2019, 10109 of 2019, 10116 of 2019, 10134of 2019,
10168 of 2019, 10169 of 2019, 10225 of 2019, 10226 of 2019, 10301 of 2019, 10302 of
2019, 10350 of 2019, 10351 of 2019, 10665 of 2019, 41 of 2020, 450 of 2020, 3219 of
2020, 3294 of 2020, 3405 of 2020, 3722 of 2020, 4455 of 2020]
-----------------
1. Soni Kumari .............. .... Petitioner
2. Kalpana Kumari 39. Lalan Kumar Jha
3. Madhuri Kumari 40. Md. Shahid Ansari
4. Rakesh Kumar 41. Md. Irfan Ansari
5. Sanjay Kumar 42. Tauqueer Alam
6. Rakesh Kumar 43. Md. Khurshid Alam
7. Shekhar Kumar 44. Md. Nesar Ansari
8. Kiss Singh 45. Md. Rijwan Ansari
9. Sanjiv Kumar Tiwari 46. Sudama Yadav
10. Pramila Kumari, daughter of 47. Umapad Rajak Dhanshyam Mahto 48. Md. Minhaj Uddin
11. Ajay Kumar Abedkar 49. Sunil Kumar Das
12. Anup Kumar 50. Ravidas Kumar Yadav
13. Namita Kumar 51. Dhananjay Kumar
14. Yogendra Prasad Verma 52. Lalan Kumar Yadav
15. Satish Kumar 53. Md. Maksud Alam
16. Rita Kumari 54. Brajesh Kumar
17. Madhu Kumari 55. Amresh Kumar
18. Ranjit Kumar Singh 56. Vikas Kumar Pandey
19. Neelima Kumari 57. Ashok Kumar
20. Dewki Kumari 58. Kaushlya Kumari
21. Vikash Prasad 59. Sunita Kumari
22. Binod Kumar 60. Janamjay Prasad Singh
23. Suman Kumari 61. Sunil Kumar
24. Rohit Kumar Mahto 62. Prashant Ghosal
25. Anita Kumari 63. Deepak Kumar Sharma
26. Seema Kumari 64. Sagar Chandra
27. Kumari Nutan 65. Umesh Kumar Mahto
28. Santosh Kumar Mahto 66. Janak Kumar Mahatha
29. Sudhir Prasad 67. Karamchand Mahatha
30. Sandeep Prasad 68. Jay Prakash Mahatha
31. Santosh Kumar Choudhary 69. Pankaj Kumar Pandey
32. Mani Kant Pathak 70. Sanjay Kumar Pramanik
33. Subhash Chandra Prajapati 71. Dilip Kumar Mahatha
34. Md. Shahid 72. Rajesh Kumar Chowdhary
35. Md. Sarfaraz Ahmad 73. Indira
36. Anup Kumar 74. Tapas Kumar Majee
37. Shatrunjay Kumar Kushwaha 75. Bhrigu Ram Kumbhakar
38. Upendra Kumar 76. Gopal Chandra Prajapati W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 2
77. Basudeo Mahto 127. Ajit Kumar
78. Nandlal Mahto 128. Rajendra Kumar
79. Ashish Kumar Sharma 129. Sukhdeo Yadav
80. Kumar Anand 130. Pankaj Kumar
81. Md. Shahid Raza 131. Virendra Kumar
82. Gulam Sarwar Ansari 132. Manoj Kumar Vishwakarma
83. Prakash Mahto 133. Abhay Kumar Verma
84. Ashok Kumar Mahto 134. Sunil Saw
85. Chandra Mohan Mahto 135. Dipalika Kumari
86. Sanjay Mahto 136. Usha Kumari
87. Vikas Prajapati 137. Banarsi Kumar
88. Md. Inayat Safi 138. Anita Kumari
89. Babita Kumari 139. Pramod Kumar Thakur
90. Hirendra Pandit 140. Binod Kumar Sharma
91. Ashish Juganu 141. Vijay Kumar Sharma
92. Anil Kumar Das 142. Fahmida Naaz
93. Amit Kumar Das 143. Seema Naaz
94. Pankaj Rao 144. Shabana Perween
95. Suresh Kumar 145. Zeenat Ara
96. Pradip Kumar 146. Om Prakash Choudhary
97. Ejaj Ahmad 147. Sudhir Yadav
98. Vinita 148. Prahalad Kumar Pathak
99. Falguni Kumar Das 149. Manilal Ravi
100. Indra Deo Das 150. Kabita Kumari
101. Mukesh Kumar Choudhary 151. Jyoti Kumari
102. Md. Imdad Hussain 152. Ritesh Rishu Prasad
103. Kanti Paul 153. Nagendra Kumar
104. Babudhan Mishra 154. Sunil Kumar Mehta
105. Anjani Kumari Mehta 155. Kavita Kumari
106. Mukesh Kumar 156. Rupesh Prasad
107. Purnima Kumari 157. Ashok Kumar Mahto
108. Sudhir Kumar Mehta 158. Punam Kumari
109. Yatindra Kumar Mahto 159. Pinki Kumari
110. Raj Kumar Rajak 160. Anil Kumar Maurya
111. Shiv Charan Murmu 161. Krishna Kumar Neelam
112. Uttam Kumar Sah 162. Kalyani
113. Luteshwar Prasad 163. Arvind Kumar Rana
114. Ranbir Pandey 164. Minhaj Ansri
115. Ishwar Chandra Thakur 165. Md. Mojahid Eqbal
116. Neelam Kumari 166. Md. Shahid Ali
117. Sunita Kumari 167. Md. Jhangir
118. Dinesh Rana 168. Md. Furqan
119. Ashok Kumar Sharma 169. Md. Afzal Husain
120. Manju Kumari 170. Ramesh Chandra Jha
121. Ashok Yadav 171. Santosh Kumar
122. Puja Kumari 172. Md. Aslam
123. Mithilesh Malakar 173. Ujjwal Kumar Choubey
124. Lalit Kumar Mahato 174. Junaid Alam Ansari
125. Chanchal Kumar Pandey 175. Dharmendra Sah
126. Ravi Ranjan Kumar 176. Touhid Alam W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 3
177. Umesh Kumar Gupta 227. Sumit Kumar Mandal
178. Sarita Devi 228. Mantu Kumar Kushwaha
179. Upendra Paswan 229. Bamdeo Das
180. Md. Saddam Hussain 230. Kanhaiya Kumar Sah
181. Rahul Kumar Tiwari 231. Ranjeet Kumar Dutta
182. Md. Shana Alam 232. Naresh Saw
183. Md. Shahnawaz Khan 233. Dhiren Mahato
184. Shailesh Mishra 234. Sudarshan Mahato
185. Md. Tarique Anwar 235. Vivekanand Mahato
186. Bhola Hazam 236. Lalita Rani
187. Pravin Kumar Sharma 237. Mahesh Kumar Saw
188. Sataullah Ansari 238. Punam Kumari Jagware
189. Kanchan Kumari 239. Reshma Kumari
190. Chandan Kumar 240. Sasthi Pada Mondal
191. Thakur Ram Bindu Ray 241. Surjan Ghosh
192. Md. Muzaffar Ali 242. Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari
193. Niranjan Kumar Niraj 243. Rajesh Kumar Pandey
194. Jyoti Kumar 244. Bhola Kumar Pandey
195. Barun Kumar Mandal 245. Baby Kumari
196. Amit Kumar Dey 246. Laxmi Priya
197. Deepak Kumar Dutta 247. Kiran Kumari Singh
198. Md. Akhter Hussain 248. Nitu Priya
199. Dhananjay Mandal 249. Rajesh Mandal
200. Rajesh Kumar Sah 250. Sanjay Kumar Saw
201. Hena Keshar 251. Gopal Chandra Prajapati
202. Md. Shahin Akhtar 252. Md. Gulam Murtaza
203. Gautam Kumar Bhagat 253. Din Dayal Sahu
204. Keshav Kumar Mahto 254. Ibrar Alam
205. Sushil Kumar Singh 255. Vikash Kumar
206. Shrawan Kumar Bhagat 256. Kavita Kumari
207. Prabhat Ranjan Mahto 257. Brindawan Mahto
208. Mukesh Kumar Bhagat 258. Nawal Kishor Mahto
209. Brahmdev Sharma 259. Bhagirath Mahto
210. Hemant Kumar Mahto 260. Sabita Kumari
211. Nirmal Kumar Mahto 261. Kalawati Kumari
212. Ranjit Kumar 262. Dilip Kumar
213. Om Prakash Sah 263. Anju Kumari
214. Akash Kumar Mandal 264. Tarkeshwar Prasad Mahto
215. Vikash Kumar Mandal 265. Harinandan Prajapati
216. Kunal Kumar Parashar 266. Vinay Paswsan
217. Md. Afraz Alam 267. Anup Dungdung
218. Rachna Kumari 268. Niraj Kumar Pal
219. Pramod Kumar 269. Mohini Shikha
220. Shashi Suman 270. Ranjit Barnwal
221. Ashish Ghosh 271. Md. Sajjad Hussain
222. Kundan Thakur 272. Rukhshana Khatun
223. Prakash Kumar Mandal 273. Abdul Qaiyum
224. Shiv Shankar Gupta 274. Moin Ansari
225. Ranjeet Kumar 275. Farzana Khatoon
226. Vikash Kumar 276. Manawara Naz W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 4
277. Md. Asif Aziz
278. Asifa Khatoon
279. Near Ahmad Hafzi
280. Afroz Ansari
281. Md. Merajul Haque
282. Adarsh Kumar
283. Shakib Raja
284. Afshana Parveen
285. Md. Tamim Ahmad
286. Md. Mahboob Alam
287. Azmatullah
288. Md. Khalid Akhtar
289. Nilkanth Verma
290. Ajit Kumar Rajwar
291. Md. Nuruddin Khan
292. Abu Saad
293. Abdul Jalil
294. Ahmad Ismail
295. Obaidullah Kaleem
296. Amish Kumar
297. Ranjan Kumar Mishra
298. Bipin Kumar Roy
299. Abdul Razzaque Rizvi
300. Shila Kumar
301. Shashi Kant Kumar
302. Aurangzeb
303. Md. Shakil Akhtar
304. Zeenat Tabassum
305. Md. Shahid
306. Md. Jahangeer
307. Gulam Mozakkir
308. Ganesh Kumar Mahato
309. Komal Kumari
310. Triloki Chandra Roy
311. Sadhu Ram Mahto
312. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad
313. Md. Nazir Hussain
314. Khushwant Kumar ...... ...... Intervenor / Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literary Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi.
4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi.
W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017and analogous matters 5
5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi.
6. The Principal Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
...... ..... Respondents
7. Vivek Kumar 47. Sanjay Kumar Verma
8. Shiv Prasad Mahto 48. Pintu Kumar Verma
9. Vikash Ranjan Singh 49. Ravindra Prasad Verma
10. Sunil Kumar Sah 50. Ashok Mandal
11. Tapan Kumar Rana 51. Vikas Kumar,
12. Somnath Bose son of Surendra Prasad
13. Rupak Kumar Dey 52. Ashutosh Kumar Pandey
14. Bishwanath Paul 53. Kush Kumar Choudhary
15. Arun Dey 54. Nirmal Pandit
16. Bhupen Chandra Patra 55. Ashok Kumar
17. Tapas Kumar Mahto 56. Shailesh Kumar Sharma
18. Jagdish Chandra Mahto 57. Rocky Kumar
19. Yamini Mahto 58. Sudhansu Saran
20. Prasant Misra 59. Sona Sahu
21. Manjit Dhawria 60. Jitendra Vishwakarma
22. Raj Kumar Sent 61. Umesh Ray
23. Vikas Kumar, 62. Pankej Kumar Chakram
son of Tribhuan Roy 63. Prakash Das
24. Mukesh Kumar Yadav 64. Sanjay Kumar
25. Umesh Kumar Yadav 65. Anil Kumar Das
26. Diwakar Kumar 66. Mukesh Das
27. Kakoli Dutta 67. Pankaj Kumar Das
28. Md. Ekramul Haque Ansari 68. Bam Shankar Ray
29. Bablu Kumar Barnwal 69. Md. Jamal Uddeen
30. Chandan Kumar 70. Md. Shahir Kamal
31. Santosh Kumar Mahto 71. Md. Sajid Hussain
32. Indradeo Sao 72. Md. Akbar Ali
33. Dhirendra Kumar Mehta 73. Md. Azhariddin
34. Mithlesh KumarVerma 74. Mithalesh Kumar
35. Rekha Kumari 75. Jaynarayan Verma
36. Vijay Lal Yadav 76. Anil Kumar Das
37. Manish Kaushal 77. Ashish Kumar Kesera
38. Bishnu Kant Ranjan 78. Sitaram Rajak
39. Md. Zamir Alam 79. Harshit Hemant
40. Md. Manzoor Alam 80. Sunil Kumar Verma
41. Md. Khalid Anwar Ansari 81. Nunulal Das
42. Md. Salauddin Ansari 82. Jainul Ansari
43. Raj Kumar Saw 83. Sunil Yadav
44. Amit Kumar Gupta 84. Anil Kumar
45. Basant Kumar Saw 85. Monu Kumar
46. Jagdish Ravidas 86. Rajendra Kumar
W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017
and analogous matters
6
87. Rajkishor Tudu 138. Chandrakant Mahto
88. Vikash Kumar Verma 139. Sanjay Kumar Barnwal
89. Santu Kumar 140. Parmeshwar Prasad Verma
90. Shankar Paswan 141. Arvind Kumar
91. Pravin Kumar Pandey 142. Pawan Kumar
92. Subodh Kumar 143. Ravi Kant
93. Sanjay Kumar 144. Vikash Kumar
94. Sandeep Kumar 145. Sadanant Deo Ravi
95. Pritam Kumar Das 146. Mousam Kumar
96. Pappu Kumar Sharma 147. Netlal Prasad Yadav
97. Bacchan Kumar Roy 148. Gautam Kumar
98. Umeshankar Verma 149. Rajesh Yadav
99. Janardan Prasad Verma 150. Ali Akbar
100. Ravi Kumar 151. Mritunjay Pandey
101. Ravi Kumar Yadav 152. Habil Baskey
102. Md. Nasar Khurshid 153. Sunil Kumar
103. Basant Kumar Paswan 154. Manjesh Patel
104. Birendra Kumar 155. Sandip Kumar
105. Abhinay Deep 156. Bindhyachal Mishra
106. Manohar Prasad Kushwaha 157. Md. Akram Meraj
107. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey 158. Vikash Kumar Sagar
108. Sandeep Prasad Verma 159. Avinash Kumar Choudhari
109. Pawan Kumar Verma 160. Sunil Kumar
110. Bimal Prasad 161. Sanjay Yadav
111. Chandraeo Prasad Verma 162. Ajay Murmu
112. Monalisa Datta 163. Satish Kumar Singh
113. Pankaj Kumar Modi 164. Anil Kumar Rajak
114. Pankaj Kumar Yadav 165. Mahesh Kumar
115. Mahesh Prasad Yadav 166. Subodh Kumar
116. Shashi Kant Sinha 167. Sujit Rana
117. Rajesh Kumar 168. Jagadish Bauri
118. Santosh Kumar Sharma 169. Rajnit Ghosh
119. Arjun Hembrom 170. Suvadip Dey
120. Manoj Kumar Hansda 171. Sanjay Mahato
121. Shnidi Hansda 172. Nigar Sultana
122. Parmod Kumar 173. Binod Kumar Pandit
123. Jitendra Kumar Verma 174. Arvind Kumar Yadav
124. Subodh Kumar Verma 175. Satish Kumar Singh Yadav
125. Amit Kumar Verma 176. Alok Raj
126. Rina Saw 177. Parmanand Kumar Verma
127. Sunil Verma 178. Snigdha Singh
128. Jeba Majeed 179. Udit Kumar Deo
129. Santosh Kumar Mahto 180. Santosh Kumar
130. Ranjit Kumar Verma 181. Vidya Prakash
131. Anil Pandi 182. Anima Mukherjee
132. Tinku Prasad Verma 183. Umesh Kumar Verma
133. Manoj Kumar Pandey 184. Haridwar Singh
134. Dinesh Prasad Yadav 185. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Bharti
135. Tinku Mandal 186. Pankaj Kumar Singh
136. Gopal Rajak 187. Mahesh Kumar Yadav
137. Khirodhar Prasad Gupta 188. Ajay Kumar W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 7
189. Amit Kumar 238. Kishore Kumar Vishwakarma
190. Vinod Kumar Yadav 239. Lalita Kumari
191. Dharmjeet Singh Chouhan 240. Priyanka Priya
192. Anish Kumar Rai 241. Pradeep Das
193. Rajesh Kumar Singh 242. Birendra Kumar Das
194. Mahendra Kumar 243. Dinesh Kumar
195. Siddharth Kumar Singh 244. Roma Kumari
196. Saurabh Keshri 245. Sunil Ksingh
197. Bipin Kumar Singh 246. Sushil Kumar Verma
198. Sushil Kumar 247. Mangala Prasad
199. Karunesh Kumar Srivastava 248. Umesh Kumar
200. Abhimanyu Kumar Singh 249. Sachidanand Rana
201. Raju Yadaw 250. Ashok Yadav
202. Sunil Yadav 251. Amit Karpoor
203. Vinod Kumar 252. Ramawtar Kumar
204. Sumant Kumar 253. Aradhana
205. Ravi Kumar 254. Seema Kumari
206. Sunil Kumar Rana 255. Barun Kumar Singh
207. Chandradeo Das 256. Sanjiv Kumar Gupta
208. Sanjay Kumar Sharma 257. Ashok Kumar
209. Rajesh Kumar Das 258. Raju Choudhary
210. Sanjay Kumar Verma 259. Md. Zulfkar Alam
211. Gopeshwar Saw 260. Kanak Shikha
212. Bidiya Sagar Paswan 261. Rakesh Kumar
213. Sanoj Yadav 262. Helina Kujur
214. Subhash Kumar Yadav 263. Ranjan Kumar
215. Shyam Sudnar Yadav 264. Jitendra Kumar Singh
216. Ajay Kumar Das 265. Bhardul Paswan
217. Shankar Paswan 266. Rekha Kumari
218. Raju Das 267. Rajan Kumar Gupta
219. Shankar Kumar Pandit 268. Ashutosh Kumar Mishra
220. Ram Kripal Singh 269. Pranit Kumar Thakur
221. Deepak Kumar Pandit 270. Shashi Kant
222. Ashok Kumar Pandit 271. Om Prakash Lal
223. Mukesh Paswan 272. Sourav Kumar
224. Vikram Kumar Paswan 273. Salma Lakra
225. Vijay Kumar Yadav 274. Sushmanti Minz
226. Binod Rabidas 275. Pankaj Desai
227. Shakti Kumar Das 276. Yogendra Kumar Ram
228. Samir Kumar Ravi 277. Niraj Kumar
229. Shivlal Kumar Yadav 278. Sanjeev Kumar
230. Shambhu Kumar Das 279. Kapil Kumar Kulshrestha
231. Gagan Kumar Das 280. Md. Shekawat Alam
232. Harihar Kumar Singh 281. Bharat Kumar Rajak
233. Arti Kumari 282. Bighu Ram
234. Binod Sharma 283. Javed Ali
235. Nagendra Kumar 284. Akhilesh Prajapati
236. Pradeep Kumar 285. Raksha Singh
237. Sanoj Kumar Yadav 286. Ravi Ranjan Soni W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 8
287. Dilip Prasad 338. Om Prakash Mehta
288. Santosh Kumar Mehta 339. Nepali Ram
289. Birendra Singh 340. Deepak Kumar Paswan
290. Rajeev Srivastava 341. Binay Kumar Ravi
291. Anupam Tiwari 342. Yash Arya
292. Bhakti Vikram Singh 343. Pradeep Kumar Mehta
293. Sandeep Singh 344. Priya Ranjan Pandey
294. Ranjeet Singh 345. Sunil Kumar
295. Dayanand Paswan 346. Sweta Kumari
296. Sharma Kumar 347. Santosh Kumar Paswan
297. Chandan Kumar 348. Hamlin Kant
298. Manoj Kumar Yadav 349. Chandra Kanta Kumari
299. Guru Prasad 350. Jitendra Kumar
300. Bhim Yadav 351. Pawan Kumar
301. Dhramendra Pal Singh 352. Sunil Kumar
302. Lal Bahadur 353. Priyanka Kumari
303. Kripashankar Verma 354. Sarita Kumari
304. Suman Kumari 355. Kavita Kala
305. Smita Singh 356. Kedar Nath Maurya
306. Mamta Kumari 357. Ranjeet Kumar
307. Prerna Pallawi 358. Md. Aslam
308. Priyanka Kumari 359. Nousaba Khatoon
309. Kavita Kushwaha 360. Seema Singh
310. Sunil Yadav 361. Amrita Sinha
311. Naresh Kumar Dinkar 362. Sangita Kumari
312. Dilip Kumar 363. Dilip Prasad
313. Om Prakash Singh 364. Ainul Hak
314. Dilip Kumar Rajak 365. Md. Khurshid Alam
315. Shailendra Pratap Singh 366. Mohammad Serajul Haque Quadri
316. Girish Chandra Yadav 367. Sumit Ranjan
317. Anand Kumar Singh 368. Dharmendra Kumar Singh
318. Anand Madhav Pandey 369. Gaurav Kumar
319. Vivekanand Singh 370. Pramod Kumar
320. Rohit Kumar 371. Vivekanand Prasad Yadav
321. Chandrashekhar Mehta 372. Birendra Yadav
322. Niranjan Kumar Mehta 373. Abhishek Chowdhury
323. Santosh Kumar Yadav 374. Kingshuk Goswami
324. Ashish Kumar 375. Mansa Kheto
325. Santosh Kumar 376. Hommaid Arafat
326. Mohd. Irfan Sajid 377. Digambar Kumar
327. Md. Abrar Alam 378. Viksh Patel
328. Santosh Kumar 379. Kamaldeo Kumar
329. Kalpana Pandit 380. Ranjan Kumar Gupta
330. Rajni Ojha 381. Nitish Kumar
331. Rupesh Kumar 382. Sindhu Mehta
332. Manoj Kumar Yadav 383. Shobha Kumari
333. Md. Irfan Ahmad 384. Sabita Kumari
334. Imtiyaz Ahmad 385. Dinesh Kumar Singh
335. Mohammed Imam 386. Manoj Kumar Singh
336. Md. Nadeem 387. Priyhit Kumar Soni
337. Anju Upadhyay W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 9
388. Shiv Prasad Yadav 436. Mukesh Kumar Thakur
389. Amit Kumar Mehta 437. Arun Kumar Gupta
390. Santosh Ram 438. Pawan Kumar
391. Anup Kumar 439. Nazia Parween
392. Brij Bihari 440. Preetam Vali Shukla
393. Rekha Kujur 441. Brijesh Kumar Nagar
394. Santosh Ram 442. Anukool Rai
395. Rohit 443. Rajesh Kumar Mishra
396. Akash Kumar Das 444. Rajesh Kumar Upadhyay
397. Ankit Raj 445. Sudhakar Kumar Singh
398. Deepak Kumar Ravi 446. Vidya Kumari
399. Rakesh Ram 447. Satish Kumar Suman
400. Firoz Alam 448. Raju Kumar
401. Narendra Kumar Ram 449. Binod Choudhary
402. Sanjay Kumar 450. Mitrasen Maurya
403. Anjali Kumari 451. Jitendra Kumar Gupta
404. Sweta Gupta 452. Shweta Kumari Sinha
405. Lokesh Kumar 453. Reena Kumari
406. Srikant Kumar Singh 454. Jayprakash Kumar
407. Md. Sharib 455. Dharmendra Kumar Singh
408. Rishikesh Kumar 456. Jitendra Kumar Gupta
409. Husn Ara 457. Narendra Gupta
410. Kamrun Khatoon 458. Dhirendra Singh
411. Sujit Kumar Mandal 459. Vineshwar Ram
412. Shyamal Kumar Mandal 460. Ajay Kumar
413. Sudhir Ram 461. Nazia Nikhat
414. Md. Hasan Raza 462. Md Ghulamnabi
415. Pratibha Kumari 463. Chandrakanta
416. Shabana Farhat 464. Shashi Shekhar
417. Anuj Kumar Ravi 465. Ram Pravesh Ram
418. Vijay Kumar Saw 466. Dhirendra Kumar
419. Ram Pravesh Yadav 467. Dayashankar Rajak
420. Aashish Rana 468. Santosh Das
421. Kumari Archana 469. Pankaj Kumar Rajak
422. Ranadip Kanti Sarkar 470. Abhay Sandeep Minj
423. Bashistha Mahto 471. Rinku Kumar Paswan
424. Md. Sajjad Hussain 472. Pratibha Kumari
425. Faizul Bari 473. Hareram Vishwakarma
426. Amit Kumar Layek 474. Ashok Kumar Ram
427. Santonu Samanta 475. Rajesh Kumar Mishra
428. Satish Kumar 476. Sushil Kumar Tiwari
429. Supriya Patra 477. Pratibha Kumari
430. Satyesh Khan 478. Kanchan Kumari
431. Ranjeet Kumar Singh 479. Dilip Kumar Ravidas
432. Dharmendra Tripathi 480. Dinesh Kumar Yadav
433. Manish Kumar Singh 481. Rajdhan Baitha
434. Bhola Prasad Singh 482. Brajesh Rabi
435. Rajesh Kumar Bind 483. Sanjeet Kumar W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 10
484. Rajesh Kumar Chandravanshi 535. Surendra Kumar Ravi
485. Ranjan Kumar 536. Jitendra Ram
486. Kishor Kunal Paswan 537. Santosh Kumar Gupta
487. Vimal Kumar Patel 538. Lalan Ram
488. Rakesh Kumar Verma 539. Subhash Kumar Varma
489. Dinesh Kumar Singh 540. Durgesh Prasad Gupta
490. Prabhat Kumar 541. Ranjeet Kumar
491. Pradeep Singh 542. Pradeep Kumar Ravi
492. Sushil Kumar Tiwari 543. Anand Kumar Singh
493. Ajay Kant 544. Dharm Prakash Gupta
494. Shiv Kumar 545. Ratnesh Kumar Mehta
495. Pramod Yadav 546. Deepak Kumar Pathak
496. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav 547. Banwari Lal Pandey
497. Krishna Kumar Yadav 548. Manju Singh
498. Jitendra Kumar Gupta 549. Anurag Kumar
499. Abhay Kumar 550. Ashutosh Kumar
500. Raj Kumar Pal 551. Ranjit Kumar
501. Pankaj Kumar 552. Vijay Shankar Singh
502. Anand Kumar 553. Vinod Kumar Singh
503. Kamlesh Choudhary 554. Dev Narayan Bharti
504. Sahir Ansari 555. Rejendra Kumar
505. Surya Kant Pal 556. Vinod Kumar Singh
506. Sunil Kumar Prajapati 557. Sindhoo Yadav
507. Ramkresh Ram 558. Ranjana
508. Uday Prasad 559. Anita Yadav
509. Yugal Kishor Tiwary 560. Dhirendra Kumar Singh
510. Om Prakash Ram 561. Rajesh Kumar Singh
511. Jitesh Kumar Gupta 562. Suneel Kumar
512. Alka Kumari 563. Shiv Shankar Yadav
513. Md. Shakil Ansari 564. Sanjay Kumar
514. Bipin Kishor Minj 565. Kishor Kumar Munna
515. Krishna Chaudhary 566. Abhay Raj Singh
516. Amrita Pathak 567. Vijay Kumar
517. Ashutosh Sharan Singh 568. Renu Bala
518. Nandlal Choudhary 569. Om Prakash Yadav
519. Naresh Prasad Gupta 570. Vir Bahadur Singh
520. Ranjay Kumar 571. Daulal Kumar Paswan
521. Bipin Kumar Chaudhray 572. Arun Kumar Giri
522. Md. Irshad Ansari 573. Dinesh Chandra
523. Satyendra Ram 574. Manish
524. Rakesh Chaudhary 575. Rajesh Kumar Yadav
525. Md. Adam Ali Ansari 576. Manish Kumar Dwivedi
526. Arun Kumar 577. Anand Singh Yadav
527. Raj Kumar Pandey 578. Raghavendra Prasad Yadav
528. Rajesh Yadav 579. Praeep Kumar Patel
529. Rakesh Kumar Vishwakarma 580. Vijay Kant Pal
530. Vivek Kumar 581. Tuneshwar Kumar Thakur
531. Abhimanyu Kumar Tiwari 582. Alok Kumar Yadav
532. Surendra Prajapati 583. Santram Singh
533. Amit Kumar 584. Brijesh Kumar Yadav
534. Satish Prasad Gupta 585. Awdhesh Kumar W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 11
586. Anil Kumar Chaurasiya 633. Arun Kumar Rajak
587. Rajesh Kumar Pandey 634. Upendra Ram
588. Ramesh Kumar 635. Rahul Kumar
589. Sony Kumari 636. Ajay Kumar Tiwari D/o Raju Paswan 637. Amit Kumar Tripathi
590. Sony Kumari 638. Nilesh Kumar Yadav D/o Rajdev Ram Paswan 639. Ashok Kumar Pal
591. Anu Kumari 640. Vimlesh Singh
592. Amit Kumar Pandey 641. Ramesh Kumar Singh
593. Amit Kumar Dubey 642. Mahendra Kumar
594. Gitanjali 643. Basant Kumar Mandal
595. Shrilal Mahto 644. Manoj Kumar Swarnkar
596. Upendra Ram 645. Prabhakar Mandal
597. Atikur Rahman 646. Om Prakash Ray
598. Ajit Kumar Singh 647. Bhupendra Kumar
599. Sanjay Kumar 648. Kamal Kumar
600. Mukund 649. Ramlal Kumar
601. Ram Prasad Mishra 650. Abdul Wahab
602. Ram Singh Patel 651. Perwez Mosharraf
603. Rajesh Kumar Chaurasiya 652. Ghulam Khairul Wara
604. Rajneesh Jaiswal 653. Ritesh Kumar
605. Raendra Prasad Singh 654. Subhash Sagar
606. Manoj Kumar 655. Tej Narayan
607. Ravindra Kumar 656. Madhusudan Kumar Singh
608. Mithilesh Kumar 657. Saroj Kumar Malakar
609. Parmod Kumar 658. Nandlal Singh
610. Virendra Kumar Singh 659. Pawan Kumar
611. Amit Kumar Gupta 660. Anudhita Gupta
612. Abhay Kumar 661. Sushil Kumar Das
613. Manika Kumari 662. Dhananjay Kumar Singh
614. Parsun Barik 663. Krishna Kumar Dhar Dubey
615. Sudipta Kumar Pradhan 664. Mithilesh Kumar Anand
616. Thin Jana 665. Manoj Kumar Das
617. Biplab Hui 666. Pradeep Kumar
618. Gizi. Md. Shahanawaj 667. Manoj Kumar
619. Anup Mukherjee 668. Sanjeet Kumar Das
620. Partha Mukhopadhyay 669. Kishor Kumar
621. Baban Gope 670. Vijay Kumar Das
622. Prasanta Karmakar 671. Pramod Kumar
623. Suresh Kumar Verma 672. Ravi Kumar Rahul
624. Arvind Soren 673. Banti Kumari
625. Shusil Tudu 674. Sikendra Kumar Sharma
626. Praveen Chaudhary 675. Birendra Prasad Kushwaha
627. Sanjay Kumar 676. Ajeet Ram
628. Karunesh Chandra Tiwari 677. Vikram Kumar Prabhat
629. Nanresh Kumar Sharma 678. Raj Kishor Prasad
630. Ravishankar Chaturvedi 679. Nandu Ravidas
631. Vedram 680. Ravi Kumar
632. Narendra Kumar W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 12
681. Rinkey Kumari 731. Vijay Kumar Ravi
682. Bindeshwar Kumar 732. Neha Afreen
683. Pankaj Kumar 733. Sanjay Kumar Saw
684. Raj Kumar Saw 734. Santosh Anand
685. Neelam Sarita 735. Sushant Kumar
686. Pramod Kumar Das 736. Ravi Kumar
687. Sukesh Kumar 737. Sikandar Prasad
688. Tuleshwar Prasad Mehta 738. Vijay Kumar
689. Shiv Shankar Prasad 739. Bishwa Nath Soni
690. Ashish Kumar 740. Anil Kumar
691. Indra Kumar Yadav 741. Rina Kumari
692. Manbahadur Singh 742. Prashant Kumar
693. Anurag Yadav 743. Renu Kumari
694. Jugal Kishor 744. Abhinav Kumar Gupta
695. Rajnee Gandha 745. Sangita Kumari
696. Rinku Kumar Das 746. Nageshwar Mahtha
697. Md. Imran 747. Shiv Kumar
698. Ranjit Kumar 748. Pramod Kumar
699. Sawan Kumar Das 749. Geeta Kumari
700. Priyanka Prasad 750. Majid Ahmad
701. Kunti Kumari 751. Sanjeev Kumar
702. Umesh Kumar 752. Aakanksha Kumari
703. Devendra Kumar 753. Sunil Kumar Saw
704. Santosh Anand 754. Birendra Prasad
705. Besheshwar Kumar Thakur 755. Kunwar Prasad
706. Mukesh Kumar Rana 756. Rajesh Kumar Gupta
707. Baleshwar Mahto 757. Shweta Kumari Vishwakarma
708. Sandeep Kumar 758. Pooja Yadav
709. Jaideo Kumar Saw 759. Mala Yadav
710. Prakash Yadav 760. Anup Kumar
711. Nageshwar Ram 761. Munna Lal Prasad
712. Raj Kishor Patel 762. Narendra Kumar
713. Triloki Prasad 763. Dilip Kumar
714. Vikash Kumar 764. Sunita Kumari
715. Sarita Kumari 765. Sunil Kumar
716. Raj Kumar Prasad 766. Damodar Kumar
717. Lakshman Kumar 767. Sagar Kumar
718. Surendra Prasad 768. Dayanand Thakur
719. Anupama 769. Upendra Kumar Mehta
720. Shagufta Parween 770. Shanta Ekka
721. Anup Kumar Mehta 771. Noushad Alam
722. Sanju Kumari 772. Sanju Kumari
723. Varsha Rani 773. Suneel Kumar Yadav
724. Munna Kumar 774. Dewki Mahto
725. Gautam Kumar 775. Abodh Ram
726. Mukesh Kumar Ram 776. Md. Jalaluddin
727. Vikram Kumar 777. Md. Murtuza
728. Anil Nath 778. Ramdeo Bharti
729. Subodh Kumar Das 779. Jitendra Kumar Yadav
730. Sanjay Kumar Das 780. Yogendra Kumar Mahto W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 13
781. Md. Safeque Ansari 829. Shailendra Pratap Singh
782. Bittu Kumar 830. Shweta Kumari
783. Sangita Kumari 831. Amita Kumari
784. Mahendra Kumar 832. Ram Bachan Kumar Das
785. Ganesh Kumar 833. Manoj Tirkey
786. Ranjana Singh 834. Priyanshu Raj
787. Prakash Mehta 835. Santosh Kumar
788. Jay Narayan Ram 836. Avinash Yadav
789. Ravi Kumar 837. Ravi Kumar
790. Zakir Hussain 838. Ghanshyam Gupta
791. Rajesh Kumar 839. Tulsi Kumar Das
792. Raj Kumar Ravidas 840. Govind Kumar Das
793. Daso Rana 841. Madhusudan Ram
794. Birendra Kumar 842. Arvind Ram
795. Sangita Kumari 843. Pramod Kumar Singh
796. Brahmadeo Narayan Kushwaha 844. Bijay Ravi Das
797. Kailash Kumar Mahto 845. Bhuneshwar Rajwar
798. Bhupesh Kumar Mahto 846. Fuleshwar Kumar
799. Bhuneshwar Mahto 847. Uday Kumar
800. Umesh Prasad 848. Sanjay Kumar Mehta
801. Binit Kumar 849. Bihari Rabidas
802. Satish Prasad 850. Uttam Kumar Das
803. Yadunandan Kumar 851. Sanjay Rajak
804. Razi Ahmad 852. Jageshwar Prasad
805. Niranjan Kumar Rai 853. Ajit Kumar
806. Deosharan Kumar Mehta 854. Uday Kumar Gupta
807. Diwakar Kumar 855. Navin Kumar
808. Rajeev Ranjan 856. Siddharth Kumar
809. Vijay Kumar 857. Dilip Kumar
810. Rohit Prasad 858. Dashrath Saw
811. Bharat Ram 859. Arun Kumar
812. Jageshwar Mahto 860. Chittaranjan Kumar
813. Dashrath Mahto 861. Pradeep Kumar
814. Deepak Kumar 862. Papai Samanta
815. Faruck Ansari 863. Puja Sinha
816. Bably Kumari Kushwaha 864. Anuradha Kumari
817. Sakendra Prasad Mehta 865. Malti Melgandi
818. Anand Kumar 866. Ajay Kumar Mahto
819. Anil Kumar Das 867. Md. Wasim Ahmad
820. Binod Kumar Das 868. Rani Deogam
821. Rajdev Prasad 869. Lalita Bari
822. Kavindra Kumar 870. Archana Sinku
823. Mamta Yadav 871. Nirmal Birua
824. Naresh Prajapati 872. Arjun Tamsoy
825. Narayan Kumar Mahto 873. Narendra Nath Sawaiyan
826. Shankar Kumar Bhogta 874. Mahesh Prasad Mahto
827. Vikash Kumar Tarun 875. Saroj Kumar Mahto
828. Pradeep Kumar 876. Rabindra Nath Mahto W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 14
877. Sushma Dahanga 926. Reeta Kumari Singh
878. Sabita Kumari Mahto 927. Kumari Durga
879. Arta Bhanjan Pradhan 928. Sachin Balmuchu
880. Kavita Kumari Tanty 929. Menka Purty
881. Padma Kumari Mahato 930. Sanjay Kumar
882. Sangita Mahato 931. Prem Chandra Mahto
883. Minu Laxmi Soren 932. Achutya Nanda
884. Pushpa Rani Bodra 933. Junas Hembrom
885. Ajay Kumar Rajak 934. Somra Minz
886. Biju Mandal 935. Manki Kudada
887. Sudeepto Pradhan 936. Mukesh Kumar Mahto
888. Suchitra Kapoor 937. Amita Dahanga
889. Vikash Kumar Thakur 938. Sheela Hembrom
890. Rubi Kumari Prajapati 939. Preeti Hessa
891. Rashmi Tiriya 940. Jagmohan Jamuda
892. Bindu Rekha Pradhan 941. Rani Mahto
893. Durga Charan Gope 942. Chandan Mishra
894. Samuel Honhaga 943. Razi Hayat
895. Manju Kandeyang 944. Abhishek Kumar Mahto
896. Mathiyash Jojo 945. Anita Sinku
897. Manjil Kumar Banra 946. Jaya Jacinta Sundi
898. Pankaj Pradhan 947. Laxmi Kumari
899. Aplana Kumari 948. Prem Lal Mahato
900. Kaladhar Bansriya Mahto 949. Rakhi Janak Ho
901. Vikash Mahto 950. Sawan Kumar Gagrai
902. Bhawani Mahto 951. Mangal Singh Soy
903. Minaxi Kumari 952. Nawal Kishore Mahto
904. Alok Vishwakarma 953. Radha Kerketta
905. I. Alam @ Md. Intekhab Alam 954. Sibon Munda
906. Manoj Kumar Mahato 955. Dipeeka Richard
907. Prakash Mahato 956. Sulekha Kumari
908. Bikram Aditya 957. Punto Dorai
909. Sushant Pradhan 958. Anita Biruly
910. Kanchan Kumari Shukla 959. Rekha Sundi
911. Mandira Ganguly 960. Rashmi Bari
912. Manas Ray 961. Mithun Nayak
913. Rajan Kumar Pradhan 962. Pranav Kumar Rajak
914. Naresh Hembrom 963. Thakur Prasad Munda
915. Ajay Kumar Mahto 964. Mithun Kudada
916. Jackson Boipoi 965. Gulshan Hembrom
917. Motilal Pan 966. Dhanu Hembrom
918. Binay Surin 967. Bhanu Prakash Sawaiyan
919. Madhuri Bari 968. Saroj Sundi
920. Punta Majhiain 969. Sona Ram Chatar
921. Anant Tanti 970. Nikhlesh Kumar Paswan @
922. Sanjay Kumar Singh Nikhlesh Paswan
923. Mansingh Sandil 971. Pankaj Kumar Rajak
924. Grace Margaret Boipai 972. Amit Kumar Jaiswal
925. Sunny Buriuly 973. Rakesh Pandey W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 15
974. Moniruddin 1023.Ranjeeta Satpathy
975. Satyendra Hessa 1024.Sangita Mahato
976. Bharati Mahto 1025.Saman Rani
977. Dushyant Pradhan 1026.Sumitra Mardi
978. Manju Bari 1027.Sunita Kumari
979. Manju Kumari 1028.Prakash Mahto
980. Subhandra Deogam 1029.Kailash Chandra Mahato
981. Sukhmoti Deogam 1030.Dilip Kumar Mahato
982. Shobha Kumari 1031.Chandra Mahato
983. Saraswati Samad 1032.Biresh Kumar Mahato
984. Mukesh Purty 1033.Kabita
985. Somnath Birua 1034.Rashmi Singh
986. Mary Gagri 1035.Abha Abhimanju Kumar
987. Antu Jamuda 1036.Subila Sardar
988. Peter Paul Nag 1037.Mithun Kumar Gupta
989. Mukharjeet Pradhan 1038.Soumitra Haldar
990. Kamla Bari 1039.Jiten Mandal
991. Amit Kumar Baghel 1040.Suman Kumar Paul
992. Sushma Munda 1041.Hemant Kumar Kalindi
993. Susari Munda 1042.Sanjeeb Kumar Paul
994. Poonam Bari 1043.Sujata Bhakat
995. Sunita Chattar 1044.Babulal Singh
996. M William Ho 1045.Sagar Murmu
997. Sadanand Ichagutu 1046.Shanti Bari
998. Khushbu Lakra 1047.Chandrakant Kumar
999. Rup Narayan Samad 1048.Debasharan Mahto 1000.Kusum Kanta Ekka 1049.Malay Kumar Dutta 1001.Ranjita Kanta Kindo 1050.Binal Kumar Mahato 1002.Manjusha Prajapati 1051.Md. Asif @ Iqubal 1003.Suchitra Jamuda 1052.Gopal Mahali 1004.Monika Sawaiyan 1053.Pankaj Kumar 1005.Jyoti Tiu 1054.Sudeep Kumar 1006.Shiv Shankar Kunkal 1055.Gurubari Mardi 1007.Laxmi Mahto 1056.Anita Murmu 1008.Pinki Kumari 1057.Shila Kumari 1009.Kishore Kumar Mahato 1058.Sulata Kumari 1010.Navin Kumar Mishra 1059.Mamta Kumari 1011.Bhaktipriya Baidya 1060.Rakshakar Mandal 1012.Sonachand Pramanik 1061.Deepak Kumar Mahato 1013.Suprabha Sarangi 1062.Pran Krishna Rajak 1014.Munuren Kandulna 1063.Laxmi Rani Paul 1015.Shivani Singh Tiriya 1064.Bandana Mandal 1016.Bachpan Singh Korah 1065.Mirja Tudu 1017.Salan Jojo 1066.Kapra Hansda 1018.Bhudeb Shankar Nayak 1067.Arpita Bera 1019.Swapan Kumar Mandal 1068.Daktari Hansda 1020.Bishwanath Bera 1069.Tumpa Mahapatra 1021.Reshma Perween 1070.Swapan Kumar Dey 1022.Rakesh Kumar 1071.Jaysingh Hansda W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 16 1072.Satya Narayan Paida 1122.Sushila Hansda 1073.Rajeev Maity 1123.Goutam Kumar Mahato 1074.Samit Kumar Shaw 1124.Dulal Chandra Rajak 1075.Manash Mahato 1125.Asit Kumar Murmu 1076.Sutapa Rani Senapati 1126.Chinmay Mahato 1077.Gopal Chandra Ghosh 1127.Moni Mardi 1078.Narayan Singh 1128.Surai Hansda 1079.Shital Mardi 1129.Ruby Rani Mahato 1080.Indrani Bhol 1130.Sarita Kumari 1081.Soumen Ghosh 1131.Kishor Kumar 1082.Ruma Mahato 1132.Majnu Ansari 1083.Debasish Singh 1133.Birendra Nath Mahato 1084.Gaya Ram Singh 1134.Pran Krishna Kumbhakar 1085.Bhupan Chandra Gope 1135.Lakhindra Besra 1086.Karan Kumar Singh 1136.Rakesh Singh Sardar 1087.Kalpana Shit 1137.Bihari Lal Sardar 1088.Kamlesh Singh 1138.Shreemanta Pramanik 1089.Rajeev Maity 1139.Sumitra Mandi 1090.Ratikanta Pradhan 1140.Sunita Kumari 1091.Mansa Ram Mahali 1141.Dinbandhu Singh 1092.Kheyali Mandal 1142.Suku Hembram 1093.Giridhari Kundu 1143.Bikash Mohantty 1094.Aditya Karan 1144.Rajni Murmu 1095.Pinki Kumari Maity 1145.Jaya Prabha Hembrom 1096.Bishwajit Giri 1146.Harpit Kour 1097.Subrata Pradhan 1147.Laxmi Moni Pawri 1098.Papiya Saha 1148.Braja Mohan Majhi 1099.Sabita Kumari 1149.Pawan Kumar 1100.Bishnu Pada Sah 1150.Dharmendra Kumar 1101.Debasish Das 1151.Amit Kumar 1102.Subin Singh Sardar 1152.Sudhir Kumar Pandey 1103.Raj Gopal Basa 1153.Ajay Kumar Singh 1104.Shikha Rani 1154.Bharti Dubey 1105.Deepika Bhuniya 1155.Manoj Kumar Mishra 1106.Bithika Pradhan 1156.Satish Kumar 1107.Malay Kumar Bhakat 1157.Manoj Kumar Rajak 1108.Khidor Majhi 1158.Hiralal Modi 1109.Rajesh Kumar Raj 1159.Kuldeep Paswan 1110. Prabin Kumar Mohanty 1160.Rajaram Ranjan 1111. Kajal Nayak 1161.Jhumar Kumari 1112. Anita Murmu 1162.Ranjan Kumar Paswan 1113. Sabita Rani Besra 1163.Puja Bharti 1114. Rakesh Shit 1164.Manoj Kumar 1115. Mahadev Mahato 1165.Ajay Kumar 1116. Prafulla Mahato 1166.Prem Shankar Kumar 1117. Bhabesh Mahato 1167.Ranjit Kumar 1118. Jayanta Kumar Nayak 1168.Baikunth Kumar Yadav 1119. Sachi Dulal Bera 1169.Jai Prakash 1120.Premila Majhee 1170.Md. Mobin 1121.Kumar Basant Mahali 1171.Rana Pratap Singh W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 17 1172.Azmat Salam Siddiquee 1221.Parvat Samanta 1173.Zeenat Parween 1222.Tarun Choudhary 1174.Abdul Faiz Rafat 1223.Prakash Karmakar 1175.Md. Kaushar Alam 1224.Himadri Mandal 1176.Anurag Mishra 1225.Sabyasanchi Chakraborty 1177.Diwan Singh 1226.Avik Kumar De 1178.Kaptan Singh 1227.Dilip Kumar Mahto 1179.Sulekha Rani 1228.Birendra Kumat Tudu 1180.Jyoti Kumari 1229.Bhuban Rohitdas 1181.Santosh Mehta 1230.Satyawan Bauri 1182.Arjun Kumar Singh 1231.Pappu Kumar 1183.Sakshi Kumari 1232.Pankaj Das 1184.Satyendra Ram 1233.Subhash Kumar 1185.Devtadeen Mishra 1234.Vikash Kumar Sharma 1186.Dinesh Kumar 1235.Raj Kumar Singh 1187.Subhash Chandra Tiwari 1236.Neelam Guria 1188.Sudhanshu Nath 1237.Maskalan Hereng 1189.Priya Kumari 1238.Suman Dibya Guria 1190.Upendra Kumar Gupta 1239.Fulmani Kumari 1191.Nawneet Prasad 1240.Sabra Khatoon 1192.Sudhir Kumar Rajak 1241.Rajmani Kumari 1193.Satyendra Rajak 1242.Asha Kumari 1194.Raj Kamal 1243.Saikat Chattopadhyay 1195.Sanjay Kumar Rajak 1244.Biswajit Mahata 1196.Ram Prawesh Kumar 1245.Suresh Rabidas 1197.Sunil Kumar 1246.Jai Prakash Rabidas 1198.Daya Ram 1247.Udit Lal Rajak 1199.Upendra Ram 1248.Kailash Mahra 1200.Manoj Kumar 1249.Raghbendra Suman 1201.Sanjay Thakur 1250.Herman Minz 1202.Sanjay Kumar 1251.Amulya Jyoti Minz 1203.Sadan Kumar Prajapati 1252.Mahadev Rabvidas 1204.Mahtab Ansari 1253.Arun Kumar 1205.Anupa Tirkey 1254.Pankaj Kumar 1206.Kumari Jaya 1255.Sanjay Kumar Mandal 1207.Dharmendra Ram 1256.Kanchan Bala 1208.Jayprakash Singh 1257.Devendra Kumar Bharti 1209.Kameshwar Thakur 1258.Sandeep Kumar 1210.Srawan Kumar 1259.Rose Sweta Bedia 1211.Rakesh Kumar 1260.Aman Kujur 1212.Jeet Kamal Mehra 1261.Rajbeer Kumar Choudhary 1213.Pramod Kumar Das 1262.Karuna Kumari 1214.Rahul Kumar 1263.Anushree Das 1215.Sourav Pal 1264.Vishal Kumar Rajak 1216.Somnath Ganguli 1265.Pawan Kumar Das 1217.Tapas Pratihar 1266.Amit Kumar 1218.Shiv Babu Patel 1267.Vinita Kerketta 1219.Vinod Kumar Yadav 1268.Samir Prabhat Bara 1220.Milan De 1269.Tasiya Nag W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 18 1270.Geeta Kumari 1319.Tulasi Mahto 1271.Amit Kumar 1320.Jyoti Kumari 1272.Zeenat Begam Ansari 1321.Bikas Prasad 1273.Nisha Kachhap 1322.Sushil Kumar Das 1274.Mamta Rani Bara 1323.Vishwajeet Singh 1275.Subhash Chandra Bage 1324.Intekhab Alam 1276.Bindu Kujur 1325.Kaushalya Kumari 1277.Rajesh Kumar Sahu 1326.Mazahir Anwar 1278.Mukesh Saw 1327.Kheman Lal Mahto 1279.Umesh Saw 1328.Sarita Kumari 1280.Awadhesh Kumar Singh 1329.Md. Mazeed Alam 1281.Savitri Kumari 1330.Kaunain Ahmad 1282.Pushpa Kumari 1331.Tamanna Shahper 1283.Gayatri Kumari 1332.Vinod Prasad Kushwaha 1284.Meena Kujur 1333.Dipnarayan Kumar Mahto 1285.Archana Kumari 1334.Manoj Kumar Gupta 1286.Reena Kumari 1335.Anand Mahto 1287.Vineeta Pandey 1336.Kundan Kumar Mehra 1288.Surendra Kumar Singh 1337.Mahendra Kumar Das 1289.Vijay Kumar Pathak 1338.Lal Mohan Bedia 1290.Uday Shankar Mishra 1339.Sandip Kumar 1291.Madhubala Kumari 1340.Premdip Kumar Mahto 1292.Arun Kumar Yadav 1341.Anjan Kumar 1293.Madhu Devi 1342.Manohar Karmali 1294.Kamlesh Prasad 1343.Avinash Kumar 1295.Anju Kumari 1344.Sanjay Kumar Ravi 1296.Mithilesh Kumar 1345.Basant Raj Munda 1297.Santosh Kumar Ram 1346.Deepak Kumar Ravi 1298.Gopal Sharan Pathak 1347.Ramsewak Kumar Das 1299.Alok Kumar Choubey 1348.Bimal Mahto 1300.Pradeep Kumar Singh 1349.Bablu Kumar 1301.Arvind Kumar Dubey 1350.Ramanuj Kumar 1302.Sunil Vishwakarma 1351.Kailash Mahto 1303.Sadhna Kumari 1352.Kamlesh Ram 1304.Shashikant Pandey 1353.Urmila Rani 1305.Vikash Kumar Das 1354.Usharanjan Kumar 1306.Md. Abid Hussain 1355.Sudha Kumari 1307.Manoj Kumar 1356.Ishwari Prasad 1308.Ashok Kumar Munda 1357.Mani Shankar Das 1309.Digamber Nayak 1358.Aditya Kumar Gupta 1310.Jitendra Kumar 1359.Dhananjay Kumar 1311.Bisheshwar Mahto 1360.Rakesh Kumar 1312.Narayan Mahto 1361.Suman Kumari 1313.Roushan Karmali 1362.Pradeep Kumar 1314.Kamal Kumar Mahto 1363.Kumari Sunita Choudhary 1315.Ravindra Kumar 1364.Priyanka Barnwal 1316.Manoj Kumar Mahto 1365.Chandradeo Mahto 1317.Ganesh Kushwaha 1366.Anita Kumari 1318.Shiv Bachan Kumar Mahto 1367.Mahendra Ganjhu W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 19 1368.Dablu Kumar 1417.Amit Kumar 1369.Khirodhar Mahto 1418.Sonu Sahjad 1370.Mithlesh Kumar Ravidas 1419.Manoj Kumar 1371.Omprakash Mahto 1420.Pramod Kumar Gupta 1372.Sangeeta Kumari 1421.Yogendra Ram 1373.Renuka Kumari 1422.Ramesh Kumar Gupta 1374.Sweta Rani 1423.Uneshwar Kumar 1375.Niranjan Mahto 1424.Hemnath Mahto 1376.Priyanka Kumari 1425.Krishna Kumar Rana 1377.Satish Kumar 1426.Ajay Kumar Niraj 1378.Arun Kumar 1427.Vijay Ram Ravidas 1379.Sonu Karmali 1428.Sukhdeo Mahto 1380.Vijay Kumar Mahto 1429.Nitesh Kumar 1381.Kushendra Kumar 1430.Ritesh Kumar 1382.Sarfaraz Ahmad 1431.Mahendra Mahto 1383.Malti Kumari 1432.Renu Kumari 1384.Pradeep Kumar Mahto 1433.Punit Ram Mahto 1385.Laleshwar Patel 1434.Madan Kumar 1386.Akash Kumar Saw 1435.Rajshree Lal 1387.Panneshwari Kumari 1436.Pawan Kumar Keshri 1388.Raj Kishore Ohdar 1437.Rajesh Kumar Keshri 1389.Ashok Kumar Minj 1438.Virendra Kumar 1390.Jagdish Kumar 1439.Naresh Kumar 1391.Ruma Kumari 1440.Dharmendra Kumar 1392.Birendra Kumar Bedia 1441.Manoj Ravidas 1393.Amit Kumar Yadav 1442.Raj Kishor Mahto 1394.Arpana Kumari 1443.Birbal Mahto 1395.Md. Fahimuddin 1444.Priyatam Kumar 1396.Rupam Kumari 1445.Neeraj Kumar 1397.Nitesh Kumar 1446.Dashrath Kumar 1398.Santosh Ram 1447.Deelip Kumar Mahto 1399.Patel Bihari 1448.Ambedkar Kumar 1400.Shyam Deo Mahto 1449.Sushma Kumari 1401.Mahabir Ram 1450.Kameshwar Yadav 1402.Sunil Kumar Mahto 1451.Kumar Shubham 1403.Ghulam Baki 1452.Binay Kumar Sharma 1404.Amita Kumari 1453.Sundar Sangam 1405.Pramod Kumar 1454.Sewak Kumar Ram 1406.Gulancho Kumari 1455.Bablu Ram 1407.Vinay Kumar 1456.Yugeshwar Ram 1408.Manoj Ram 1457.Jitendra Kumar Das 1409.Ajay Kumar Mehta 1458.Md. Noorullah 1410.Raja Ram Ravi 1459.Manoj Kumar 1411.Pushpalata 1460.Shantanu 1412.Birendra Kumar Das 1461.Poonam Kumari 1413.Santosh Kumar 1462.Nirmala Kumari 1414.Shakeel Anjum 1463.Tulsi Kumar Mahto 1415.Pawan Kumar 1464.Gopal Prajapati 1416.Randhir Yadav 1465.Sandeep Kumar Singh W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 20 1466. Arti Kumari Saw 1514.Aparajita Kumari 1467.Hensel Kandulna 1515.Rabindra Sai 1468.Augustina Surin 1516.Stephenson Gunjan Lakra 1469.Kasti Kumari 1517.Tikeshwar Sai 1470.Jyoti Barla 1518.Deodarshan Baraik 1471.Bindu Soreng 1519.Archana Kumari Sanga 1472.Dibya Soreng 1520.Satyajit Kumar 1473.Madhura Dungdung 1521.Anil Kumar 1474.Neelu Rashmi Samad 1522.Nirmal Bara 1475.Neeta Alice Samad 1523.Pratima Kullu 1476.Awanish Kumar Vaibhaw 1524.Nutan Kumari 1477.Lidiya Grace Sahu 1525.Amit Kumar 1478.Jeevan Amrit Kujur 1526.Sanjeev Kumar 1479.Ajay Kumar Dungdung 1527.Shikha Prasad 1480.Yeshvaryawati Kumari 1528.Fuljames Kerketta 1481.Deepmala Kullu 1529.Prem Dungdung 1482.Shailesh Avines Minz 1530.Akhilesh Kumar Sai 1483.Ritika Kumari 1531.Reshma Ekka 1484.Anita Sarojni Bara 1532.Prabha Karuna Surin 1485.Punam Soreng 1533.Irin Jenifa Kindo 1486.Reshma Kumari 1534.Bindu Kumari Kandulna 1487.Sony Kumari 1535.Anima Kiro 1488.Baren Lakra 1536.Lalit Jugnu Minj 1489.Ravindra Ekka 1537.Olive Rashmi Minj 1490.Rashmi Kandulna 1538.Seema Gupta 1491.Amrendra Kumar Singh 1539.Yagneshany Kumari 1492.Dropadi Kumari 1540.Neha Kandulna 1493.Prateek Barla 1541.Atal Kandulna 1494.Shilpa Kumari Prasad 1542.Anant Kumar 1495.Baby Gupta 1543.Suman Kerketta 1496.Binita Bilung 1544.Abhishek Kumar Rahit 1497.Poonam Lakra 1545.Anand Tirkey 1498.Priyadarshi Bara 1546.Alka Kullu 1499.Priyanka Bara 1547.Isidor Dungdung 1500.Vicky Kumari Nag 1548.Anshu Tirkey 1501.Sushma Kerketta 1549.Komal Dang 1502.Jay Prakash Nag 1550.Kunal Kishore 1503.Abha Ekka 1551.Priyanka Kumari 1504.Sarif Barwa 1552.Hira Kumar 1505.Gold Milton Bara 1553.Shanta Kullu 1506.Vinita Kiran Kandulna 1554.Rejina Supriya Surin 1507.Jayanti Bimlesh Lakra 1555.Renu Maujula Lakra 1508.Emma Bara 1556.Nutan Kumari Pandey 1509.Jyoti Xaxa 1557.Ajit Jolea Marki 1510.Suchita Helena Xalxo 1558.Priya Kerketta 1511.Vinay Kumar Horo 1559.Neelam Kerketta 1512.Ignatius Ekka 1560.Anshumala Baxla 1513.Anurag Tete 1561.Sonio Sarita Tirkey W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 21 1562.Sangeeta Kujur 1610.Shankar Kumar Sahu 1563.Leokadia Jojo 1611.Pramod Kumar 1564.Anita Ram 1612.Anil Kumar Yadav 1565.Pratima Kerketta 1613.Suman Kumar Munda 1566.Vinita Bilung 1614.Jitendra Gupta 1567.Mohoni Panna 1615.Krishna Kumar Rana 1568.Ruse Topno 1616.Deepak Kumar Rana 1569.Alexius Kujur 1617.Sanjay Paswan 1570.Aditi Kumari 1618.Tuleshwar Sahu 1571.Geeta Kumari 1619.Rajesh Kumar Dangi 1572.Nand Kishore Sahu 1620.Sunil Kumar Saw 1573.Kusum Kiran Khalkho 1621.Manoj Kumar Ram 1574.Lilawai Surin 1622.Bijay Toppo 1575.Nemha Sarita Kullu 1623.Ravindra Kumar 1576.Reshma Jeneuibha Kiro 1624.Minakshi Kumari 1577.Kumudini Kandulna 1625.Suman Kumar 1578.Vinay Prakash Samad 1626.Nawal Kishor Kumar 1579.Sangeeta Tirkey 1627.Amrendra Arya 1580.Reshma Tigga 1628.Bindeshwari Ram 1581.Sarita Kujur 1629.Suresh Kumar 1582.Anita Tete 1630.Rajesh Prasad 1583.Anupam Franciciya Tudu 1631.Anil Kumar 1584.Kanchan Mala Devi 1632.Sangam Kumar 1585.Rubi Kumari 1633.Sunil Kumar Keshri 1586.Premi Kerketta 1634.Prakash Ram 1587.Shashikant Verma 1635.Umesh Kumar Dandi 1588.Bipul Kumar Singh 1636.Sanjay Kumar Yadav 1589.Rajdew Ram Dangi 1637.Hemraj Kumar Mehta 1590.Prakash Dangi, 1638.Sunil Prasad Mehta son of Late Tirath Mahto 1639.Manoj Kumar 1591.Prakash Dangi, 1640.Santosh Prasad son of Shivpujan Dangi 1641.Rupesh Kumar Sinha 1592.Premlata Kumari 1642.Meghnarayan Kumar 1593.Naresh Paswan 1643.Dipan Prajapati 1594.Vinod Paswan 1644.Vivek Bharti 1595.Baidyanath Prasad 1645.Shiv Kumar Yadav 1596.Krishnakant Verma 1646.Munna Kumar Rajak 1597.Dashrath Prasad Kushwaha 1647.Vijay Kumar 1598.Pawan Kumar 1648.Jageshwar Mahto 1599.Vivek Kumar Gupa 1649.Santosh Kumar Gupta 1600.Dineshwar Kumar Bhuiyan 1650.Rajesh Kumar Gupta 1601.Arjun Ram 1651.Anil Kumar Sinha 1602.Khirodhar Kumar Sahu 1652.Nitish Kumar 1603.Naresh Kumar 1653.Sanjay Kumar Singh 1604.Manoj Kumar 1654.Sanjay Yadav 1605.Ratandeo Dangi 1655.Rajesh Kumar 1606.Pawan Kumar 1656.Pintu Kumar Gupta 1607.Amit Kumar 1657.Md. Ikbal Hussain 1608.Pappu Kumar 1658.Ashish Kumar 1609.Ravi Kumar Keshri 1659.Sarita Kumari W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 22 1660. Gurucharan Mahto 1711. Rajendra Murmur 1661. Shashant Kumar 1712. Binod Marik 1662. Kamal Kant 1713. Prabhat Kumar 1663. Ramfal Kumar Dangi 1714. Shibje Show 1664. Rubi Kumari 1715. Avijit Mondal 1665. Gavaskar Prasad Gupta 1716. Tapan Kumar Mandal 1666. Kameshwar Gupta 1717. Kameshwar Pandit 1667. Anuj Kumar Dangi 1718. Amit Kumar Gupta 1668. Sanjay Dangi 1719. Diwakar Kumar Das 1669. Ramadhar Prasad Singh 1720. Anil Kumar Anal 1670. Rahul Kumar 1721. Yusuf Ansari 1671. Manish Kumar 1722. Md. Qumaruddin 1672. Bishnujeet Kumar 1723. Md. Yusuf 1673. Anil Kumar 1724. Suyash Anand 1674. Umesh Kumar 1725. Shiv Shankar Murmu 1675. Mahesh Ravidas 1726. Anamika Bharti 1676. Vikas Kumar 1727. Gautam Kumar Rajhans 1677. Gita Kumari 1728. Manish Kumar 1678. Santosh Kumar 1729. Ranjeet Kumar 1679. Prayag Yadav 1730. Abhishek Kumar Singh 1680. Punam Kumari 1731. Dinesh Kumar Roy 1681. Rishi Kapoor Ram 1732. Md. Irfan Ansari 1682. Sangita Kumari 1733. Umesh Chandra Verma 1683. Sant Kumar Singh 1734. Ranjit Kumar 1684. Ved Prakash 1735. Sujeet Kumar 1685. Gita Kumari 1736. Shailendra Kumar 1686. Sapna Kumari 1737. Uttam Kumar Das 1687. Bhim Ram 1738. Surendra Kumar Das 1688. Badari Prasad Mehta 1739. Binodini Sinha 1689. Ajay Kumar Dangi 1740. Moti Lal Mahto 1690. Ramprawesh Thakur 1741. Lalit Kumar Sharma 1691. Kusum Kumari 1742. Sanjit Kumar Upadhyay 1692. Kavita Sinha 1743. Ramdeo Mandal 1693. Prahalad Seth 1744. Dipak Kumar Mahto 1694. Muleshwar Mandal 1745. Santosh Pandit 1695. Sunil Kumar Mandal 1746. Sarbeshwar Kumar Pandit 1696. Sarju Das 1747. Dhirendra Kumar Bharti 1697. Suman Saurabh 1748. Anirban Ghar 1698. Bhaiya Shakti Kumar Singh 1749. Sunil Prasad Verma 1699. Barun Rawani 1750. Falguni Prasad Verma 1700. Satyam Shivam Sundaram 1751. Lal Mohan Tudu 1701. Neha Singh 1752. Dipu Lal Agarhari 1702. Sunita Hasda 1753. Suresh Hembrom 1703. Md. Israfil 1754. Priya Singh 1704. Shishir Shekhar 1755. Beauty Kumari 1705. Nupur Anuradha 1756. Yogita Das 1706. Subhash Kumar 1757. Gautam Kumar 1707. Sandhya Kumari 1758. Bikash Kumar Gupta 1708. Archana Paswan 1759. Sanjay Kumar Mahto 1709. Rakesh Kumar 1760. Abrar Ahmad 1710.Manoj Kumar 1761.Syed Ibrar Hassan W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 23 1762.Julee Layek 1809.Shashank Kumar Yadav 1763.Gazal Afrin 1810.Mahima Salen Minz 1764.Holika Mahto 1811.Durgi Ekka 1765.Pramila Kumari 1812.Sanjiv Kumar 1766.Kanchan Kujur 1813.Vivek Kumar Sharma 1767.Jiwan Prakash Tirkey 1814.Pramod Kumar Mahto 1768.Khusboo Kumari 1815.Pitamber Mahto 1769.Anima Mahato 1816.Rupa Rani Tirkey 1770.Sanjay Kumar Hazam 1817.Lakhindra Munda 1771.Vidya Kumari 1818.Effat Afrin 1772.Ritu Kumari 1819.Faria Hassan 1773.Manisha Suman Kachhap 1820.Farha Tarannum 1774.Sushma Rani Ekka 1821.Kundan Kumar 1775.Asha Kumari 1822.Reshma Kujur 1776.Saima Jamal 1823.Saroj Kumar 1777.Munita Tigga 1824.Mary Vidya Tigga 1778.Anant Kishor Prajapati 1825.Suresh Chandra Mahto 1779.Md. Aftab Alam Ansari 1826.Sunita Ekka 1780.Kunj Bihari Mahto 1827.Bela Toppo 1781.Dilip Kumar Sahu 1828.Asha Kumari 1782.Sony Kumari 1829.Md. Arif 1783.Ajay Kerketta 1830.Awanish Kumar 1784.Sanjay Minz 1831.Awadhesh Prasad Mehta 1785.Kanchan Moni Lakra 1832.Madhushri Shankhwar 1786.Deepak Kumar Mahto 1833.Rani Kumari 1787.Prem Sahu 1834.Jyoti Kumari Singh 1788.Punam Kumari 1835.Kalyani Mridula 1789.Ravi Shanker Keshri 1836.Jyotsna Kumari 1790.Anamika Tirkey 1837.Sony Fatma 1791.Sushil Kachhap 1838.Sudeep Kumar 1792.Sushant Kachhap 1839.Soni Kumari 1793.Arunima Selis Tirkey 1840.Mahabir Mahto 1794.Pawan Kumar Singh 1841.Md. Irshad 1795.Himanshu Kumar Bhonsle 1842.Ashok Kumar Mahto 1796.Manoj Kumar Munda son of Laxmikant Mahto 1797.Nutan Kumar Gari 1843.Ashok Kumar Mahto son of 1798.Surendra Oraon Late Lalmohan Mahto 1799.Ajit Kumar 1844.Neelam Kumari 1800.Gouri Shankar Mahto 1845.Sanju Kumari 1801.Shanti Lakra 1846.Shyam Kumar Mahto 1802.Arnaub Biswas 1847.Praveen Kumar 1803.Poonam Ekka 1848.Neha Tirkey 1804.Shanti Tirkey 1849.Jyoti Mandal 1805.Laxmi Kant Mahto 1850.Raj Kumar Mahto 1806.Anita Tigga 1851.Anurag Singh 1807.Devcharan Kachhap 1852.Sumar Mahto 1808.Sushma Tirkey 1853.Jaideo Kushwaha W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 24 1854.Bina Lakra 1904.Awadhesh Singh 1855.Madan Kumar Sahu 1905.Chinta Mani Kumari 1856.Rangesh Shekhar 1906.Renu Kumari 1857.Ashok Oraon 1907.Prity Priyanka Bara 1858.Binita Kumari 1908.Shiv Shankar Manjhi 1859.Natick Imam Mallick 1909.Sujata Kumari 1860.Sandeep Kumar 1910.Narendra Kishore 1861.Binod Kumar Mahto 1911.Suman Kumari 1862.Upanand Kumar 1912.Bholanath Singh Munda 1863.Pratima Kumari 1913.Reshma Lal 1864.Rajesh Runda 1914.Rekha Kachhap 1865.Nikhilesh Priyadarshi 1915.Rizwana Bano 1866.Sagar Kumar 1916.Dipak Kumar Das 1867.Ashutosh Mahto 1917.Bhupendra Kumar 1868.Manoj Kumar 1918.Sudha Jyoti Toppo 1869.Manju Kujur 1919.Sheela Kumari 1870.Gangadhar Munda 1920.Maihphil Ansari 1871.Nandkishor Mahto 1921.Rajaullah Ansari 1872.Rani Tabassum 1922.Swati Kumari Sahu 1873.Santoshi Kumari 1923.Sushma Kumari 1874.Sushma Toppo 1924.Champi Kumari 1875.Suraj Mani Tana Bhagat 1925.Subodh Kant Mahto 1876.Anita Tiwari 1926.Rakesh Kumar Yadav 1877.Nikhil Tiwari 1927.Gopal Krishna 1878.Rabindra Nath Mahto 1928.Baldeo Mahto 1879.Gulshan Ara 1929.Ram Jatan Gope 1880.Arpit Suman Tigga 1930.Jayant Kumar 1881.Sangeeta Kumari 1931.Anil Kumar Yadav 1882.Shivendra Kumar 1932.Tarkeshwar Singh Munda 1883.Panchmi Devi 1933.Ganpati Koiri 1884.Drishtidanya Mahto 1934.Shweta Jayswal 1885.Prabha Kachhap 1935.Samir Hazam 1886.Shekhar Kumar 1936.Rup Singh Mahto 1887.Pratima Runda 1937.Dhananjay Kumar 1888.Ramnath Tirkey 1938.Rut Topno 1889.Rabbani Ansari 1939.Sunil Kumar Mahto 1890.Babli Oraon 1940.Padmohan Munda 1891.Nami Kumari 1941.Yoshada Kumari 1892.Saraswati Kumari 1942.Ajay Kumar Lakra 1893.Ekta Saha 1943.Premchand Barla 1894.Satyendra Nath Mahto 1944.Shakuntala Kumari 1895.Vijay Kumar Tirkey 1945.Ashok Kumar 1896.Ajay Munda 1946.Sapan Kumar Mandal 1897.Pradeep Oraon 1947.Javed Akhtar 1898.Mrityunjay Kumar Pramanik 1948.Birendra Kerketta 1899.Rashmi Sinha 1949.Karma Oraon 1900.Kumari Sunita 1950.Satish Kumar 1901.Anupama Tirkey 1951.Mahendra Oraon 1902.Kiran Devi 1952.Braj Kishor Kumar Bediya 1903.Akshewar Singh 1953.Shakuntala Kumari W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 25 1954.Usha Lakra 2004.Naseem Asnari 1955.Rabindra Nath Chhatwal 2005.Purusotam Kumar 1956.Basant Kumar Seth 2006.Aditya Prasad Gupta 1957.Modassar Nazar 2007.Abul Hasan Ansari 1958.Lal Sujit Nath Shahdeo 2008.Sunil Kumar Sharma 1959.Shweta Singh 2009.Vinod Kumar 1960.Kumari Archana Jha 2010.Shipli Kumari 1961.Mona Kumari 2011.Rohit Singh 1962.Pratima Kumari Rai 2012.Vikash Kumar 1963.Vidyasagar Manjhi 2013.Mithilesh Patel 1964.Ravindra Kumar Yadav 2014.Abhishek Kumar Gupta 1965.Birendra Prasad 2015.Md. Salman Rayeen 1966.Qadir Quraishi 2016.Vikash Kumar Sahani 1967.Mustafa Ansari 2017.Satyajit Singh 1968.Binti Kumari Munda 2018.Krishna Kumar Yadav 1969.Priyanka Shree 2019.Rajiv Ranjan 1970.Renu Kumari 2020.Sonali Kumari 1971.Neelam Sudha 2021.Sushil Kumar 1972.Umakant Swansi 2022.Bhoodev 1973.Ajay Kumar Mahto 2023.Sarvesh Prabhakar 1974.Kumud Ranjan 2024.Reshma Rekha Minj 1975.Ashish Chandra Oraon 2025.Gunjan Nibiew 1976.Mamta Kumari 2026.Priya Kumari 1977.Purushottam Kumar 2027.Raj Kishor Mehta 1978.Kumari Anupama 2028.Krishna Kumar Gupta 1979.Ranjan Kumar 2029.Pushpa Kumari 1980.Ajay Kumar Thakur 2030.Vidya Dubey 1981.Wibhash Kumar 2031.Rajeev Kumar 1982.Juwel Hembrom 2032.Brijesh Kumar Kanaujiya 1983.Ishrat Jahan 2033.Pawan Kumar Sharma 1984.Mahanad Yadav 2034.Ananya Banerjee 1985.Rajesh Kumar Yadav 2035.Anjana Keshri 1986.Sanjay Kumar Yadav 2036.Kumari Mamta Lata 1987.Ranjan Kumar Yadav 2037.Rajendra Kumar Rajak 1988.Amal Majumdar 2038.Arti Kumari 1989.Neeraj Kumar Singh 2039.Santosh Kumar Yadav 1990.Atul Kumar Rai 2040.Pratibha Kumari 1991.Surya Nath 2041.Shailesh Kumar Gupta 1992.Vinay Kumar Singh 2042.Nand Kishore Singh 1993.Bramhadev Yadav 2043.Hirman Singh 1994.Ashok Kumar 2044.Govind Yadav 1995.Amit Kumar Singh 2045.Binay Kerketta 1996.Ankit Kumar Singh 2046.Sunita Kumari 1997.Rajesh Kumar Pandey 2047.Mukesh Lakra 1998.Jai Shankar Singh 2048.Sourabh Kumar 1999.Ravi Ranjan Kumar 2049.Shyam Narayan Patel 2000.Amrendra Kumar 2050.Shiv Pujan Prajapati 2001.Prashant Kumar Singh 2051.Lalita Kumari 2002.Shashi Kant Sharma 2052.Ashesh Kirty 2003.Md. Hamid Hussain Ansari 2053.Varun Kumar Singh W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 26 2054.Nagendra Chourdhari 2103.Shailesh Kumar Gupta 2055.Renubala Tirkey 2104.Ambuj Kumar 2056.Anshu Mala Tirkey 2105.Trilochan Prasad Mahto 2057.Parvi Kispotta 2106.Vijay Kumar Ravi 2058.Akhilesh Vishwakarma 2107.Dharm Bir Patel 2059.Jay Prakash 2108.Umesh Singh 2060.Arshad Ansari 2109.Mahtab Alam Ansari 2061.Dayanand Shukla 2110.Lalit Mohan Anand 2062.Devendra Ram 2111. Nand Kishor Prasad 2063.Saroj Baitha 2112.Reyaj Ansari 2064.Sheo Kumar 2113.Janish Ansari 2065.Surendra Sharma 2114.Mithila Devi 2066.Amit Kumar 2115.Rashmi Bara 2067.Sanjay Kumar Mehta 2116.Sarita Kumari 2068.Pravin Ram 2117.Archana Kumari 2069.Ravindra Kumar 2118.Sultana Bano 2070.Amit Ranjan 2119.Kumari Amita Pandey 2071.Om Prakash Gupta 2120.Nidhi Singh 2072.Sameer Raj 2121.Mairun Khatoon 2073.Ritesh Kumar 2122.Nirupama Kumari Jayaswal 2074.Vidya Nand Arya 2123.Jyoti Singh 2075.Dinesh Kumar Choubey 2124.Jyoti Kumari Keshri 2076.Sandhya Rani 2125.Disha Upadhyay 2077.Jeetendra Kumar 2126.Sunita Pal 2078.Uma Shankar Toppo 2127.Kavita Singh 2079.Rinku Kumar Paswan 2128.Nutan Manjhi 2080.Asim Ashish Kispotta 2129.Anupama Yadav 2081.Uday Kumar Ravi 2130.Md. Samir Alam Ansari 2082.Om Shri Krishnam 2131.Rajesh Kumar Chaubey 2083.Indukala Tirkey 2132.Kapildev Singh 2084.Modesta Minj 2133.Ramesh Singh 2085.Ashish Ranjan Pandey 2134.Nikhil Kumar Seth 2086.Satyendra Prasad 2135.Ghanshyam Kujur 2087.Raju Oraon 2136.Ainul Bari 2088.Atwa Oraon 2137.Sujit Kumar Yadav 2089.Bhuneshwar Oraon 2138. Raju Ram Das 2090.Md. Sajid Ali 2139.Rajesh Kumar 2091.Pravej Alam Khan 2140.Simon Murmu 2092.Shah Alam 2141.Lakhi Tudu 2093.Abdul Qaiyoom 2142.Manju Soren 2094.Imam Ansari 2143.Pinky Alice Murmu 2095.Akram Ansari 2144.Sarju Mandal 2096.Md. Barkatullah Ali 2145.Mukesh Mandal 2097.Naushad Ahmad 2146.Rupesh Kumar 2098.Md. Suhail 2147.Rasik Hembram 2099.Pankaj Kumar 2148.Hiranmoy Paul 2100.Sujit Kumar 2149.Bijaya Sen 2101.Manoj Kumar Singh 2150.Partha Sarathi Mahto 2102.Randhir Pandey 2151. Ramesh Das W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 27 2152.Gyan Prakash Thakur 2198.Rashmi Rani Sinha 2153.Kumar Nawnit 2199.Sunil Kumar Kujur 2154.Md. Moin Ansari 2200.Sunil Kumar 2155.Suman Kumar 2201.Anup Baa 2156.Amit Kumar 2202.Arvind Kujur 2157.Suman Lala Marandi 2203.Neha Monica Minz 2158.Nandita Ceina Hansda 2204.Meera Bharti 2159.Sabita Kumari 2205.Paul Minj 2160.Onkar Choubey 2206.Prakash Kumar Baraik 2161.Premlata Kumari 2207.Vineeta Soreng 2162.Bani Mandal 2208.Sudhir Kishore Kushwaha 2163.Rani Shwet Nisha Dehri 2209.Sanjiv Kumar Shrivastva 2164.Usha Kiran Tudu 2210.Rajnish Kumar Singh 2165.Shushanti Murmu 2211.Imroz Alam Ansari 2166.Suby Saha 2212.Anil Dung Dung 2167.Sadhan Ojha 2213.Kumud Ranjan Gupta 2168.Supriya Bhardwaj 2214.Birbal Lohra 2169.Anamika Murmu 2215.Santosh Kindo 2170.Snehlata Marandi 2216.Sudhir Oraon 2171.Chandan Nandi 2217.Kumar Abhishek 2172.Shibu Hansda 2218.Shyamanand Singh 2173.Pappu Kumar Dubey 2219.Arvind Pahan 2174.Prakash Kumar Ghosh 2220.Mahohar Oraon 2175.Narendra Kumar Jha 2221.Arjun Barla 2176.Lata Kumari 2222.Jitendra Prasad 2177.Shilpee Mandal 2223.Kalawati Tirkey 2178.Natua Hansda 2224.Basanti Xess 2179.Sunanda 2225.Pushpa Toppo 2180.Kajal Kiran 2226.Rabindra Toppo 2181.Anuj Kumar Mishra 2227.Rashmi Kumari 2182.Paritosh Khan 2228.Savita Kumari 2183.Utpal Pal 2229.Amar Gyan Tirkey 2184.Jiban Kumar Bhandari 2230.Ashok Xalxo 2185.Malay Roy 2231.Pooja Nag 2186.Dilip Kumar Yadav 2232.Khudi Ram Mochi 2187. Jyoti Kumari 2233.Manisha Kumari 2188.Manesh Kumar Agarwal 2234.Rajmuni Kumari 2189.Shilp Kumari 2235.Ravindra Odhar 2190.Kailash Uranw 2236.Agapit Topno 2191.Subodh Kumar 2237.Sweta Prajapati 2192.Sujata Kumari 2238.Prakash Kumar 2193.Shakuntala Kumari 2239.Rabindra Kumar 2194.Navin Kumar 2240.Sumit Kumar 2195. Pankaj Kumar 2241.Sunil Kumar Sahu 2196.Anand Mahto 2242.Abhay Ekka 2197.Jyoti Shikha 2243.Suman Minj 2244.Anita Kumari W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 28 2245.Kirti Tirkey 2294.Anupa Rani Xess 2246.Rama Jaipal Kujur 2295.Aloka Kerketta 2247.Pankaj Kumar Gupta 2296.Leena Kujur 2248.Mukta Bara 2297.Priti Soni 2249.Shanti Kumari 2298.Tripti Kumari 2250.Sandeep Bage 2299.Priyanka Raj 2251.Rajni Kanta Kujur 2300.Varsha Rani 2252.Kushil Bhagat 2301.Suraj Minj 2253.Nisha Rani Toppo 2302.Parshuram Prajapati 2254.Anjani Toppo 2303.Baliram Bhagat 2255.Supriya Kumari 2304.Binit Kumar Nand 2256.Kanta Kumari 2305.Nuzhat Parween 2257.Raj Kumar Sahu 2306.Sangita Lakra 2258.Preeti Tiwari 2307.Anita Bernadette Kerketta 2259.Rashi Lal 2308.Chandramani Kumari 2260.Ajit Tete 2309.Anupama Kerketta 2261.Basanti Kerketta 2310.Ujjwala Minj 2262.Leos Xess 2311.Reshma Minj 2263.David Kujur 2312.Ritu Rani Minz 2264.Punam Cathrina Kujur 2313.Sumanti Kumari 2265.Basmuni Kumari 2314.Durga Sahu 2266.Bela Topno 2315.Sanehlata Tirkey 2267.Kiran Minj 2316.Rashmi Kerketta 2268.Dayanand Bhagat 2317.David Kujur 2269.Ujwal Deep Topno 2318.Neha Gunjan Gidh 2270.Karma Bhagat 2319.Vineeta Minj 2271.Jitendra Kumar Mahto 2320.Soni Kumari 2272.Purnima Singh 2321.Kanti Kullu 2273.Upwan Bara 2322.Nabel Kujur 2274.Hemant Xalxo 2323.Ujjwal Toppo 2275.Rajesh Kumar Sahu 2324.Biva Tirkey 2276.Pradeep Prasad 2325.Sushil Xalxo 2277.Basant Kumar Sahu 2326.Mukesh Odhar 2278.Charan Oraon 2327.Bhanu Pratap Bhushan 2279.Vikash Kumar 2328.Vicky Kumar Sahu 2280.Amit Kumar Lal 2329.Ashok Kumar Sahu 2281.Arti Kumari 2330.Omprakash Sahu 2282.Sudhir Kumar 2331.Amrita Kumari 2283.Anuradha Bara 2332.Jyoti Tigga 2284.Ravi Beek 2333.Manju Kumari 2285.Sweta pandey 2334.Manju Oraon 2286.Malti Kumari 2335.Sahdeo Bhagat 2287.Uttam Lakra 2336.Amrit Bhagat 2288.Ajeet Tirkey 2337.Ashish Kumar Pandey 2289.Vijay Kumar Singh 2338.Rashmi Kujur 2290.Vandna Toppo 2339.Laxminnarayan Sahu 2291.Sujata 2340.Gautam Kumar Oraon 2292.Kushma Kumari 2341.Ravindrajit Bhagat 2293.Sunita Tireky 2342.Santosh Gope W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 29 2343.Savita Kumari 2377.Mahesh Mandal 2344.Reena Kumari 2378.Amit Kumar 2345.Ashish Kumar Pandey 2379.Surendra Prajapati 2346.Sunil Kumar Singh 2380.Kajal Kumari 2347. Sima Shanti Tirkey 2381.Gaurav Kumar Pandey 2348.Sapna Kujur 2382.Aquib Javed 2349.Jyoti Kumari 2383.Shahid Ansari 2350.Praween Kumar Choudhary 2384.Faiyaj Alam 2351.Shyam Sundar Pramanik 2385.Shaziya Afreen 2352.Uttaran Banerjee 2386.Priya Kumari 2353.Sanjay Kumar Mahto 2387.Shobha Rani Mahato 2354.Alok Kumar Mondal 2388.Anuj Kumar Kashyap 2355.Satyarupa Gupta 2389.Moneshwar Vikash Verma 2356.Manoj Kumar 2390.Rajaranjan Kumar Pandey 2357.Birendra Kumar 2391.Raj Kumar Yadav 2358.Shalini Tirkey 2392.Vikram Kumar Mahto 2359.Marcus Lakra 2393.Devendra Das 2360.Rahul Kumar 2394.Ragani Kumari 2361.Ranjeet Kumar Lohar 2395.Prabhu Kumar 2362.Tarun Kumar 2396.Prerna Suman 2363.Jadu Lal Choudhary 2397.Ashish Kumar 2364.Ajit Kumar Thakur 2398.Bishnujeet Kumar Verma 2365.Shashi Kumari 2399.Pintu Kumar Gupta 2366.Shashi Kiran Tirkey 2400.Kamlesh Kumar Rawani 2367.Wasim Akram 2401.Uttam Kumar Mahato 2368.Alok Kumar Singh 2402.Prabhat Kumar 2369.Santosh Choudhary 2403.Shiv Shankar Mahto 2370.Priyanka Kumari 2404.Ramesh Lal Barnwal 2371.Alok Ranjan Choubey 2405.Dharnidhar Singh 2372.Himanshu Shekhar Tiwari 2406.Mahendra Kumar 2373.Raghubansh Mani Choubey 2407.Shyam Kumar Singh 2374.Vikash Kumar Singh 2408.Rahul Kumar 2375.Ravi Ranjan Kumar Pandey 2409.Vivek Kumar 2376.Vikash Kumar Chaube 2410.Sanjay Kumar Paswan ...... ..... Intervenor /Respondents WITH W. P. (C) No. 1700 of 2019
1. Shailendra Prasad Mehta
2. Pappu Kumar Pandey ...... ...... Petitioners WITH W. P. (C) No. 1701 of 2019
1. Kamal Kishore Pandey
2. Samir Kumar Mandal
3. Khagen Kumar
4. Jagannath Tewary
5. Rameez Ansari W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 30
6. Sabita Kumari ...... ...... Petitioners WITH W. P. (C) No. 1702 of 2019 With [ I. A. No. 8451 of 2019 ]
1. Keshari Nandan
2. Niwash Kumar
3. Subodh Kumar
4. Dharmendra Kumar
5. Rehan Ahmad Khan
6. Prakash Kumar Yadav
7. Mukesh Kumar Pandey
8. Tulo Das
9. Md. Irshad Ansari
10. Md. Riaz
11. Randhir Kumar Roy
12. Imran Khan
13. Deepak Kumar Deo
14. Rahul Kumar
15. Md. Iftekhar Ahmad
16. Mahesh Kumar
17. Shyamdeo Mandal ...... ...... Petitioners WITH W. P. (C) No. 1745 of 2019
1. Anuj Kumar Gupta
2. Raju Kumar Chaurasiya
3. Neeraj Kumar
4. Munna Prasad
5. Shashi Shekhar Pandey
6. Sudheer Kumar Mehta
7. Brajesh Kumar Singh
8. Ashutosh Kumar
9. Arfa Shamim
10. Jahan Arah
11. Ravi Kant Singh
12. Om Prakash Pandey
13. Suman Kumar
14. Avinash Kumar ...... ...... Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through Principal Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
2. The Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 31 Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. The Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC), Ranchi.
6. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC), Ranchi.
7. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC), Ranchi.
...... ..... Respondents (In W. P. (C) Nos. 1700, 1701, 1702 and 1745 of 2019)
----------------------------
PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
----------------------------
For the Petitioner : M/s Vigyan Shah, Lalit Kumar Singh, Harindra Neel, Akshit Gupta, Advocates For the Intervenor-
Petitioners : M/s Ritu Kumar, Sumeet Gadodia, Suraj Prakash, Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Ritu Raj Sinha, Jitendra Sharma, P.K. Rahul, Varun Prabhakar, Vikash Kumar, Vikash Kumar Trivedi, Anjani Kumar, Kamdeo Pandey, Ankit Apurva, Ranjan Kumar Singh, Abhijit Kumar, Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Rituraj Sinha, Sanjay Prasad Kaushik Sharkhel, Sujit Kumar Singh, Jitendra Sharma, Ravi Kumar, Akta Anand, Sujeet Kumar Singh, Advs. For the Respondent
-State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate General Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate General, M/s Rajiv Anand, G.A., Prashant Pallav, For the Respondent
-JSSC : M/s Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Sanjay Kumar Piprawal & Tejo Mistri, Advocates.
For the Intervenor Respondents : M/s Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Indrani Sen Choudhary, Sr. Advocate, Shreshtra Gautam, Rajeev Nandan Prasad, H.K. Mahto, Sanjay Kumar Pandey, C.S. Singh, Prashant Kr. Rahul, Prabhash Kumar, Pooja Kumari, Mukesh Kumar Mehta, Vijay Ranjan Singh, Ravindra Nath, Rohan Kashyap, Shubham Mishra, Govind Roy Karn, Ashwini Bhaskar, Sunil Kumar Mahto, Durga Charan Mishra, Prafull Jojo, Suchitra Pandey, Arbind Kumar, Amritansh Vats, Ankit Kumar, Nikhil Ranjan, Saumya Pandey, Binod Kumar, Piyush Chandra, Dipika Roy, S.K. Mahato, Gaurav Abhishek, Nagmani Tiwari, Anjani Kumar, Vishal Kumar Singh, Binod Singh, Bijay Ranjan Sinha, S.K. Samanta, Savita Kumari, Advocates.
------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017and analogous matters 32 C.A.V. on : 21.08.2020 Pronounced on : 21.09.2020 H.C. Mishra, J.:- All these five writ applications have been filed for the same relief and as such, we take W.P.(C ) No. 1387 of 2017 as the lead writ application, in which, all the intervention applications, other interlocutory applications, counter affidavits and supplementary affidavits have been filed.
2. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners in all these writ applications, learned counsels for the intervener petitioners, learned Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "JSSC"), as also the learned counsels for the intervener respondents.
3. It may be stated at this place itself that the petitioners and the intervener petitioners are the aspirants for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers in various subjects in the Government Secondary schools, for which they underwent selection process, but could not be appointed in the schools situated in thirteen scheduled districts in the State, because they were not the residents of the scheduled districts. The intervener respondents are in three categories, the first being those who were selected and appointed in the scheduled districts pursuant to the impugned advertisement, secondly, those who were selected but could not be appointed due to the interim order dated 18.09.2019 passed by this Court and lastly, those whose selection / appointments have been affected in other services due to the aforesaid order.
4. In the present set of writ applications, the constitutional validity of the notification and order issued by the State Government, bearing Notification No. 5938 and Order No. 5939 dated 14.07.2016 issued in its Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, as contained in Annexures-6 and 6/1 to the lead writ application is under challenge. By the said notification and order, it has been stated inter alia that in the 13 scheduled districts of the State, i.e., the districts of Sahebganj, Pakur, Dumka, Jamtara, Latehar, Ranchi, Khunti, Gumla, Lohardaga, Simdega, East Singhbhum, West Singhbhum and Seraikella-Kharsawan, only the local residents of the concerned scheduled districts shall be eligible for appointment on the District Cadre Class-III and Class-IV posts for a period of ten years from the date of issuance of the notification. Thereafter, Advertisement No. 21 / 2016 was published on 28.12.2016, as modified by the Advertisement No. 21 / 2016 published on 04.02.2017, by the State Government in its Department of Personnel, W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 33 Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Trained Graduate Teacher in the Government Secondary schools. The said advertisement was issued through the JSSC, wherein in paragraph 5(iii), it has been stated that so far as the vacancies in the scheduled districts of the State are concerned, only the local residents of those scheduled districts shall be eligible to apply. As for example, it has been mentioned that so far as the vacancies of Ranchi District are concerned, only the local residents of Ranchi District may apply. It may further be pointed out that in all, 8423 posts were advertised for filling up the vacancies in the aforesaid 13 scheduled districts in the State of Jharkhand, whereas 9149 posts were advertised for the remaining non-scheduled districts in the State. As regards the vacancies in the non-scheduled districts were concerned, it was mentioned in paragraph 5(i) of the advertisement that a candidate could apply against the vacancies in only one district of his / her choice. It may further be stated that out of 24 districts, 13 districts as mentioned above are the scheduled districts in the State of Jharkhand as notified by the Presidential Notification issued in the year 2007, which is still in force.
5. Several candidates applied for the posts and underwent the selection process. The results were published and process of appointment was initiated by the State Government. The cause of heart burning to the writ petitioners is that the candidates having higher marks than those selected in the scheduled districts, could not be appointed due to the fact that they were not allowed to apply in those districts as they were not the local residents of the scheduled districts. By order dated 21st February 2019, a Division Bench of this Court, taking into consideration the importance of the subject involved, directed that the notices be published in the Daily Newspaper, "The Telegraph" (Jharkhand Edition) and Hindi Daily Newspaper, "Prabhat Khabar" about the institution of these writ applications so that the persons interested may intervene in these writ applications. Pursuant to the publication of these notices, several interlocutory applications or intervener applications were filed and were allowed by order dated 24.04.2019. Still more intervener petitions were filed and this Court in its order dated 18.09.2019 made it clear that all the pending intervener petitions shall be allowed and all the concerned persons shall be given due hearing in this case. As such, we have heard all the parties concerned.
W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017and analogous matters 34
6. By the same order dated 18.09.2019, taking into consideration the question of Constitutional importance involved in these matters, i.e., the candidates residing outside the concerned scheduled districts or the candidates residing outside the State were deprived from submitting their applications and being considered for appointment to district cadre Class-III and Class-IV posts in the Government Offices in the scheduled districts, which is prima facie violative of equality of opportunity in the matters of public employment, which is a fundamental right of a citizen of India, guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the Division Bench referred the matter to be decided by a Larger Bench of this Court. It was further directed that pending the final decision by the Larger Bench, the operation of the Notification No. 5938 dated 14.07.2016 issued by the State Government in its Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, as contained in Annexure-6 to the lead writ application, shall remain stayed, subject to the appointments already made, if any.
7. The impugned Notification No. 5938 and Order No. 5939 dated 14.07.2016 have been issued by the Governor of Jharkhand in exercise of the power under paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth scheduled of the Constitution of India. This provision in the Constitution of India reads as follows:-
"5. Law applicable to Scheduled Areas.- (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the Governor may by public notification direct that any particular Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of the State shall not apply to a Scheduled Area or any part thereof in the State or shall apply to a Scheduled Area or any part thereof in the State subject to such exceptions and modifications as he may specify in the notification and any direction given under this sub-paragraph may be given so as to have retrospective effect."
8. The main contention of the learned counsels for the petitioners, who are led by learned counsel Sri Vigyan Shah, is that in the garb of the non-obstante clause in paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Scheduled of the Constitution of India, such notification altogether depriving the candidates of the non-scheduled districts to apply for Class-III and Class-IV district cadre posts in the scheduled districts could not be issued by the Governor of Jharkhand, as the same amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India ordains that the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 35 Part III of the Constitution and any law made in contravention of this provision shall, to the extent of such contravention, be void.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention towards Articles 16 (1) to (3) of the Constitution of India, which read as follows:-
"16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.-
(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the state.
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State.
(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment."
10. It is further submitted that Article 35 (a-i) of the Constitution of India provides that only the Parliament shall have, and the Legislature of a State shall not have, power to make laws with respect to any of the matters, which under clause (3) of Article 16, clause (3) of Article 32, Article 33 and Article 34 may be provided for by law made by Parliament. Learned counsels for the petitioners have, thus, submitted that by prescribing 'residence' as an eligibility criteria for appointment on Class-III and Class-IV posts in the scheduled districts, the Governor has acted in violation of Articles 14, 13(2), 15(2), 16(2), 21 and 35 (a-i) of the Constitution of India, thus, infringing the fundamental rights of the citizens of India guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India.
11. It has further been submitted by the learned counsels for the petitioners that the questions, whether in the garb of non-obstante clause in paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, the Governor can override the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution and whether there can be 100% reservation based upon residence, so as to make only being resident of a particular area to be the eligibility criteria for appointment to a public post, and whether the power of the Governor in paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule extends to subordinate legislation, are the questions no more res integra, and have been deliberated upon and answered in negation, in several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017and analogous matters 36
12. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in (2002) 6 SCC 562, wherein where the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the question, whether the domiciles of the particular districts of the State of Rajasthan and the residents of the rural area of the district could be given extra bonus marks in the selection process only on the basis of residence, and whether the said exercise was constitutionally valid when tested on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The question has been answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as follows:-
"13. Before proceeding further we should steer clear of a misconception that surfaced in the course of arguments advanced on behalf of the State and some of the parties. Based on the decisions which countenanced geographical classification for certain weighty reasons such as socio-economic backwardness of the area for the purpose of admissions to professional colleges, it has been suggested that residence within a district or rural areas of that district could be a valid basis for classification for the purpose of public employment as well. We have no doubt that such a sweeping argument which has the overtones of parochialism is liable to be rejected on the plain terms of Article 16(2) and in the light of Article 16(3). An argument of this nature flies in the face of the peremptory language of Article 16(2) and runs counter to our constitutional ethos founded on unity and integrity of the nation. Attempts to prefer candidates of a local area in the State were nipped in the bud by this Court since long past. We would like to reiterate that residence by itself -- be it within a State, region, district or lesser area within a district cannot be a ground to accord preferential treatment or reservation, save as provided in Article 16(3). It is not possible to compartmentalize the State into districts with a view to offer employment to the residents of that district on a preferential basis. At this juncture it is appropriate to undertake a brief analysis of Article 16.
14. Article 16 which under clause (1) guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State reinforces that guarantee by prohibiting under clause (2) discrimination on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. Be it noted that in the allied article -- Article 15 -- the word "residence" is omitted from the opening clause prohibiting discrimination on specified grounds. Clauses (3) and (4) of Article 16 dilute the rigour of clause (2) by
(i) conferring an enabling power on Parliament to make a law W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 37 prescribing the residential requirement within the State in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the State, and (ii) by enabling the State to make a provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The newly introduced clauses (4-A) and (4-B), apart from clause (5) of Article 16 are the other provisions by which the embargo laid down in Article 16(2) in somewhat absolute terms is lifted to meet certain specific situations with a view to promote the overall objective underlying the article. Here, we should make note of two things: firstly, discrimination only on the ground of residence (or place of birth) insofar as public employment is concerned, is prohibited; secondly, Parliament is empowered to make the law prescribing residential requirement within a State or Union Territory, as the case may be, in relation to a class or classes of employment. That means, in the absence of parliamentary law, even the prescription of requirement as to residence within the State is a taboo. Coming to the first aspect, it must be noticed that the prohibitory mandate under Article 16(2) is not attracted if the alleged discrimination is on grounds not merely related to residence, but the factum of residence is only taken into account in addition to other relevant factors. This, in effect, is the import of the expression "only"."
(Emphasis supplied.)
13. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also taken into consideration its earlier decision in A.V.S Narsimha Rao & Ors. Vs. State of Andra Pradesh & Anr., reported in (1969) 1 SCC 839, wherein, some special provisions were made for domiciles within the Telangana region of the then unified State of Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of public employment within that region. In the said case the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the law as follows:-
"4. The question is one of construction of this article, particularly of the first three clauses, to find out the ambit of the law-making power of Parliament. The first clause emphasises that there shall be in India equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of employment or appointment to any office under the State. The word "State" here is to be understood in the extended sense given to it by the definition of that word in Article 12. The second clause then specifies a prohibition against discrimination only on the grounds of religion, race, sex, descent place of birth, residence or any of them. The intention here is to make every office of employment open and available to every citizen, and inter alia to W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 38 make offices or employment in one part of India open to citizens in all other parts of India. The third clause then makes an exception. This clause was amended by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956. For the original words of the clause "under any State specified in the First Schedule or any local or other authority within its territory any requirement as to residence within that State", the present words from "under the Government" to "Union territory" have been substituted. Nothing turns upon the amendment which seeks to apply the exception in the clause to Union territory and to remove ambiguity in language.
5. The clause thus enables Parliament to make a law in a special case prescribing any requirement as to residence within a State or Union territory prior to appointment, as a condition of employment in the State or Union territory. Under Article 35( a) this power is conferred upon Parliament but is denied to the Legislatures of the States, notwithstanding any thing in the Constitution, and under (b) any law in force immediately before the commencement of the Constitution in respect to the matter shall subject to the terms thereof and subject to such adaptations that may be made under Article 372 is to continue in force until altered or repealed or amended by Parliament.
6. The legislative power to create residential qualification for employment is thus exclusively conferred on Parliament. ---------.
*** *** ***
9. ---------------By the first clause equality of opportunity in employment or appointment to an office is guaranteed. By the second clause, there can be no discrimination, among other things, on the ground of residence. Realising, however, that sometimes local sentiments may have to be respected or sometimes an inroad from more advanced States into less developed States may have to be prevented, and a residential qualification may, therefore, have to be prescribed, the exception in clause (3) was made. Even so that clause spoke of residence within the State. The claim of Mr Setalvad that Parliament can make a provision regarding residence in any particular part of a State would render the general prohibition lose all its meaning. The words "any requirement" cannot be read to warrant something which could have been said more specifically. These words bear upon the kind of residence or its duration rather than its location within the State. We accept the argument of Mr Gupte that the Constitution, as it stands, speaks of a whole State as the venue for residential qualification and it is impossible to think that the Constituent Assembly was thinking of residence in districts, talukas, cities, towns or villages. The fact that this clause is an exception and W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 39 came as an amendment must dictate that a narrow construction upon the exception should be placed as indeed the debates in the Constituent Assembly also seem to indicate. We accordingly reject the contention of Mr Setalvad seeking to put a very wide and liberal construction upon the words "any law" and "any requirement". These words are obviously controlled by the words "residence within the State or Union territory" which words mean what they say, neither more nor less. It follows, therefore, that Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957, insofar as it relates to Telangana (and we say nothing about the other parts) and Rule 3 of the rules under it are ultra vires the Constitution."
(Emphasis supplied.)
14. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1984) 3 SCC 654, wherein, it has been held as follows :-
"5. We may point out at this stage that though Article 15 clauses (1) and (2) bars discrimination on grounds not only of religion, race, caste or sex but also a place of birth, Article 16(2) goes further and provides that no citizen shall on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them be ineligible for or discriminated against in State employment. So far as employment under the State or any local or other authority is concerned, no citizen can be given preference nor can any discrimination be practised against him on the ground only of residence. It would thus appear that residential requirement would be unconstitutional as a condition of eligibility for employment or appointment to an office under the State and having regard to the expansive meaning given to the word "State"
in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India it is obvious that this constitutional prohibition would also cover an office under any local or other authority within the State or any corporation, such as, a public sector corporation which is an instrumentality or agency of the State. But Article 16(3) provides an exception to this rule by laying down that Parliament may make a law "prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union Territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union Territory prior to such employment or appointment". Parliament alone is given the right to enact an exception to the ban on discrimination based on residence and that too only with respect to positions within the employment of a State Government.---------
--------------.Yet, in the face of Article 16(2), some of the States are W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 40 adopting "sons of the soil" policies prescribing reservation or preference based on domicile or residence requirement for employment or appointment to an office under the Government of a State or any local or other authority or public sector corporation or any other corporation which is an instrumentality or agency of the State. Prima facie this would seem to be constitutionally impermissible though we do not wish to express any definite opinion upon it, since it does not directly arise for consideration in these writ petitions and civil appeal.
*** *** ***
20. ---------------. We agree wholly with these observations made by the learned Judge and we unreservedly condemn wholesale reservation made by some of the State Governments on the basis of "domicile" or residence requirement within the State or on the basis of institutional preference for students who have passed the qualifying examination held by the university or the State excluding all students not satisfying this requirement, regardless of merit. We declare such wholesale reservation to be unconstitutional and void as being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution." (Emphasis supplied.)
15. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P & Ors., reported in (2005) 5 SCC 172, wherein it has been held as follows :-
" Whether the State Government can prepare merit list at the district level instead of State level and the same is violative of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution
16. The Division Bench of the High Court came to the conclusion that the merit list could not be prepared on districtwise basis and that restricting the selection and preparation of merit list at the district level was not justified and amounted to discrimination. ------.
17. ------------. For these reasons, we agree with the view taken by the Division Bench on this issue and hold that restriction of the selection and preparation of merit list at the district level was arbitrary and violative of Articles 15(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution."
16. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Bishwal & Ors, reported in 1994 Supp (3) SCC 245, wherein where the rule providing direct recruitment to the cadres of Revenue Inspectors, Amins and Collection Moharrirs for the district to be made ordinarily by inviting applications from the candidates W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 41 of the district concerned only in the State of Orissa, was under challenge before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that part of the rule to be clearly violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution and thus, to be ultra vires.
17. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon a five-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Prashant Vidyarthi & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2005 (1) JLJR, 210, wherein it has been held as follows :-
"17. What, therefore, clearly emerges is that in the face of Clauses (2) and (3) of Article 16 of the Constitution, the State Government by a mere issuance of an executive order cannot prescribe residence "as a condition" for according either preferential treatment or fixing the same as an eligibility criteria by itself, being the "only guiding factor" in the matter of public employment. -------------."
18. Learned counsels further submitted that by the impugned notification, 100% reservation has been made in the Class-III and Class-IV posts of the district cadre in the scheduled districts reserving all the posts for the local residents of the concerned districts only, which is again violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which is against the law laid down by a nine-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indra Sawhney & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, wherein it has been held that the outer limit of reservations contemplated in Clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution should not normally exceed the limit of 50%.
19. Learned counsels for the petitioners have also pointed out that during the pendency of these writ applications, a Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of the then Cabinet Minister Shri Amar Bauri, namely, 'Sthaneeya awam Niyojan Samiti', which also made its recommendation for extending the same benefit of 100% reservation to the residents of all the districts in the State of Jharkhand, whether scheduled or non-scheduled. It is thus, submitted that the State Government was heading towards 100% reservation in all the districts of the State, thus, completely depriving the candidates from one district in the State to apply for Class-III and Class-IV posts in the other districts, or the candidates residing outside the State for applying against any post in the district cadre class-III and class IV posts in the entire State. The recommendations dated 17.04.2018 of the aforesaid Committee have been brought on record as Annexure-7 to the lead writ application.
W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017and analogous matters 42
20. At this stage it may be stated that these matters were heard by this Court and Judgment was reserved on 22.1.2020. This Court however, noted that on 13.2.2020, the Hon'ble Apex Court reserved its Judgment in a case involving the same issues in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. Vs. State of A.P. & Ors, in Civil Appeal No. 3609 of 2002. Accordingly, this Court by order dated 17.3.2020 refrained itself from passing the Judgment in these matters, as the decision in these matters were to be squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3609 of 2002, and any Judgment passed in the meantime by this Court could have been inconsistent to the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which situation was always to be avoided. Accordingly, by order dated 17.3.2020, these matters were adjourned and ordered to be listed after the disposal of Civil Appeal No. 3609 of 2002 by the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, we have given the liberty to the parties to hear them afresh on the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The said case has since been disposed of by the Hon'ble Apex Court by Judgement dated 22.04.2020, as reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 383.
21. After the disposal of Civil Appeal No. 3609 of 2002, these matters could not be taken up for a considerable period due the COVID-19 pandemic. With the consent of the parties, again virtual hearings were given to the learned counsels for the parties on 10.7.2020 and 21.8.2020, on which dates, the submissions of the learned counsels were confined only to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao's case (supra). As such, before discussing the other submissions of learned counsels for the parties in detail, which would be more or less of academic purpose only, the law laid down by the Apex Court in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao's case (supra), is to be considered and discussed first.
22. In Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao's case, the validity of the notification issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh as contained in Government Office M.S. No. 3 dated 10.1.2000 providing 100% reservation to the Scheduled Tribe candidates, out of whom 33.1/3% reserved for women, for the post of Teachers in the schools in the scheduled areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh was under challenge. The questions, which were framed to be considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court were as follows:-
"(1) What is the scope of paragraph 5(1), Schedule V to the Constitution of India?W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017
and analogous matters 43
(a) Does the provision empower the Governor to make a new law?
(b) Does the power extend to subordinate legislation?
(c) Can the exercise of the power conferred therein override fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III?
(d) Does the exercise of such power override any parallel exercise of power by the President under Article 371D? (2) Whether 100% reservation is permissible under the Constitution?
(3) Whether the notification merely contemplates a classification under Article 16(1) and not reservation under Article 16(4)?
(4) Whether the conditions of eligibility (i.e., origin and cut-off date) to avail the benefit of reservation in the notification are reasonable?"
23. Here a few backdrop of the aforesaid case also needs to be taken into consideration. A notification dated 5.11.1986 was issued by the Governor of the State of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of power under paragraph 5(1) of Schedule V of the Constitution of India, directing the posts of Teachers in educational institutions in the scheduled areas to be reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates only, notwithstanding anything contained in any other order or rule of law in force. The said notification was challenged before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which by order dated 25.8.1989 quashed the notification. The matter went up to the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2305-06 of 1991, which were dismissed as withdrawn on 20.3.1998. Thereafter, another order dated 25.4.1987 was issued amending the order dated 5.11.1986 to allow the appointment of non-tribals to hold the posts of Teachers in the scheduled areas till such time the qualified local tribals were not made available. After that, non-tribals, who were appointed as Teachers in the scheduled area, were terminated from service and they approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 5276 of 1993, wherein, by Judgment dated 5.6.1996, Government order dated 25.4.1987 was held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The matter was challenged before the Division Bench of the same High Court and the order of the Single Judge was set aside by the Division Bench by Judgment dated 20.8.1997. The non-tribal appointees preferred Civil Appeal No. 6437 of 1998 before the Apex Court, which was allowed on 18.12.1998. Thereafter, the Government issued fresh notification dated 10.1.2000 effectively providing for 100% reservation in respect W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 44 of appointment to the posts of Teachers in the scheduled areas. The matter went to the High Court and a three-Judge Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court by majority view upheld the validity of the Government notification. The minority view was taken by the then Chief Justice, opining that providing 100% reservation for Scheduled Tribes in scheduled areas offended Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and the Governor was not empowered to make such law in derogation to Part III or other provisions of the Constitution of India in exercise of his power under paragraph 5(1) Schedule V to the Constitution of India. The majority decision was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao's case (supra), in which, the aforesaid questions of law were formulated and answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, taking into consideration and discussing its previous decisions on the issues in detail.
24. For the sake of brevity, without discussing in detail the discussions made by the Apex Court, it would be appropriate to note down the answers given by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the questions referred to above.
25. As regards the Question No.1: What is the scope of paragraph 5(1) Schedule V to the Constitution of India? and Question No.1(a): Does the provision empower the Governor to make a new law?, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the law as follows:-
"39(a). Paragraph 5(1) of Schedule V does not confer upon Governor power to enact a law but to direct that a particular Act of Parliament or the State Legislature shall not apply to a scheduled area or any part thereof or shall apply with exceptions and modifications, as may be specified in the notification. The Governor is not authorised to enact a new Act under the provisions contained in paragraph 5(1) of Schedule V of the Constitution. Area reserved for the Governor under the provisions of paragraph 5(1) is prescribed. He cannot act beyond its purview and has to exercise power within the four corners of the provisions.
*** *** ***
51. We are of the opinion that the Governor's power to make new law is not available in view of the clear language of Paragraph 5(1), Fifth Schedule does not recognise or confer such power, but only power is not to apply the law or to apply it with exceptions or modifications. Thus, notification is ultra vires to Paragraph 5(1) of Schedule V of the Constitution."
26. Regarding Question No. 1(b): Does the power extend to subordinate legislation?, it has been held as follows:-
W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017and analogous matters 45 "57. The rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be said to be the Act of Parliament or State Legislature. Though the rules have the statutory force, they cannot be said to have been framed under any Act of Parliament or State Legislature. The rules remain in force till such time the Legislature exercises power. The power of the Governor under Paragraph 5(1) of Schedule V of the Constitution is restricted to modifying or not to apply, Acts of the Parliament or Legislature of the State. Thus, the rules could not have been amended in the exercise of the powers conferred under Paragraph 5(1) of Schedule V. The rules made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be said to be an enactment by the State Legislature. Thus, in our opinion, it was not open to the Governor to issue the impugned G.O. No.3/2000."
27. As regards the Question No. 1(c): Can the exercise of the power conferred in Paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule override fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III?, the Hon'ble Apex Court has answered the question in the following terms:-
"70. The provision of the Fifth Schedule beginning with the words "notwithstanding anything in this Constitution" cannot be construed as taking away the provision outside the limitations on the amending power and has to be harmoniously construed consistent with the foundational principles and the basic features of the Constitution.
*** *** ***
78. The power is conferred on the Governor to deal with the scheduled areas. It is not meant to prevail over the Constitution. The power of the Governor is pari passu with the legislative power of Parliament and the State. The legislative power can be exercised by the Parliament or the State subject to the provisions of Part III of the Constitution. In our considered opinion, the power of the Governor does not supersede the fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. It has to be exercised subject to Part III and other provisions of the Constitution. When Paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule confers power on the Governor, it is not meant to be conferral of arbitrary power. The Constitution can never aim to confer any arbitrary power on the constitutional authorities. They are to be exercised in a rational manner keeping in view the objectives of the Constitution. The powers are not in derogation but the furtherance of the constitutional aims and objectives."W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017
and analogous matters 46
28. Question No. 1(d) is not relevant for our purpose, as it relates to the special provisions with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
29. As regards the Question No.2: whether 100% reservation is permissible under the Constitution of India?, the Hon'ble Apex Court taking into consideration its earlier decisions, including the one in Indra Sawhney's case (supra), has laid down the law as follows:-
"127. By providing 100 percent reservation to the scheduled tribes has deprived the scheduled castes and other backward classes also of their due representation. The concept of reservation is not proportionate but adequate, as held in Indra Sawhney (supra). The action is thus unreasonable and arbitrary and violative of provisions of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It also impinges upon the right of open category and scheduled tribes who have settled in the area after 26th January 1950.-------
---------------------.
*** *** ***
131. The reason assigned that reservation was to cover impetus in the scheduled areas in the field of education and to strengthen educational infrastructure is also equally bereft of substance. By depriving opportunity to the others, it cannot be said that any impetus could have been given to the cause of students and effective education, and now that could have been strengthened. The provisions of 100 percent reservation are ignoring the merit. Thus, it would weaken the educational infrastructure and the merit and the standard of education imparted in the schools. Educational development of students cannot be made only by a particular class of teachers appointed by providing reservation, ignoring merit in toto. The ideal approach would be that teachers are selected based on merit."
*** *** ***
133. There were no such extraordinary circumstances to provide a 100 percent reservation in Scheduled Areas. It is an obnoxious idea that tribals only should teach the tribals. When there are other local residents, why they cannot teach is not understandable. The action defies logic and is arbitrary. Merit cannot be denied in toto by providing reservations.
134. A reservation that is permissible by protective mode, by making it 100 percent would become discriminatory and impermissible. The opportunity of public employment cannot be denied unjustly to the incumbents, and it is not the prerogative of few. The citizens have equal rights, and the total exclusion of others by creating an opportunity for one class is not contemplated by the founding fathers of the Constitution of India.W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017
and analogous matters 47 Equality of opportunity and pursuit of choice under Article 51−A cannot be deprived of unjustly and arbitrarily. -----------------."
30. As regards Question No. 3: Whether the notification merely contemplates a classification under Article 16(1) and not reservation under Article 16(4)?, the question has been answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following terms:-
"140. The 100 percent reservation has been provided. It cannot be said to be a case of classification that has been made under Article 16(1). Assuming, for the sake of argument, it is to be a case of classification under Article 16(1), it would have been discriminatory and grossly arbitrary without rationale and violative of constitutional mandate."
141. The incumbents of various categories have the right to stake a claim for the employment of which they have been deprived. Thus, it is not a matter of classification. The reservation under Article 16(4) was made. By way of 100% reservation, the employment to others was illegally deprived -----------------."
31. As regards Question No. 4: Whether the conditions of eligibility (i.e., origin and cut-off date) to avail the benefit of reservation in the notification are reasonable?, the question has been answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following terms:-
"143. The condition of continuously residing in the district is ex facie arbitrary. Article 15(1) of the Constitution provides that State shall not discriminate inter alia on the ground of place of birth, however, under Article 15(4), it is provided that reservation can be made in favour of citizens of backward classes i.e. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and special provision can be carved out for their advancement. It is also open to prescribe for conditions of eligibility on the ground of residence in a particular area as well as on the educational requirements but that cannot be fixed arbitrarily and irrationally."
32. Making the discussions as aforesaid, the Hon'ble Apex Court has summed up as under:-
"154. We answer the questions referred to us thus:
Question No.1: The Governor in the exercise of powers under Paragraph 5(1), Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, can exercise the powers concerning any particular Act of the Parliament or the Legislature of the State. The Governor can direct that such law shall not apply to the Scheduled Areas or any part thereof. The Governor is empowered to apply such law to the Scheduled Area W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 48 or any part thereof in the State subject to such exceptions and modifications as he may specify in the notification and can also issue a notification with retrospective effect. Question No.1(a): The Governor is empowered under Paragraph 5(1), Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, to direct that any particular Act of Parliament or the Legislature of the State, shall not apply to a Scheduled Area or apply the same with exceptions and modifications. The Governor can make a provision within the parameters of amendment / modification of the Act of Parliament or State Legislature. The power to make new laws / regulations, is provided in Paragraph 5(2), Fifth Schedule of the Constitution for the purpose mentioned therein, not under Paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India. Question No.1(b): The power of the Governor under Paragraph 5(1), Fifth Schedule to the Constitution does not extend to subordinate legislation, it is with respect to an Act enacted in the sovereign function by the Parliament or Legislature of the State which can be dealt with.
Question No.1(c): The Governor's power under Paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution is subject to some (sic - should be same) restrictions, which have to be observed by the Parliament or the Legislature of the State while making law and cannot override the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
*** *** *** Question No.2: G.O.Ms. No.3/2000 providing for 100 per cent reservation is not permissible under the Constitution, the outer limit is 50 per cent as specified in Indra Sawhney (supra). Question No.3: The notification in question cannot be treated as classification made under Article 16(1). Once the reservation has been provided to Scheduled Tribes under Article 16(4), no such power can be exercised under Article 16(1). The notification is violative of Articles 14 and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. Question No.4: The conditions of eligibility in the notification with a cut−off date, i.e., 26.1.1950, to avail the benefits of reservation, is unreasonable and arbitrary one."
33. Apart from earlier decisions referred by the learned counsels for the petitioners, placing reliance on Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao's case (supra), learned counsels for the petitioners have submitted that all these questions, which are involved in the present writ applications have been fully answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in that view of the matter, the impugned notification and order dated 14.7.2016 and all the subsequent actions of making the appointment to the posts of Trained Graduate Teacher in the scheduled districts only from W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 49 amongst the residents of those districts, ignoring the claim of the residents of the other districts or the claims of the outsiders, even though they have secured more marks than the last candidate appointed in the scheduled districts, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, being in contravention of Part III of the Constitution of India.
34. Learned counsels for the petitioners have concluded that Paragraph 5(1) of the Schedule V of the Constitution deals with the power of the Governor to issue notification contrary to any particular Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of the State, stating that the same shall not apply to the schedule area, or shall apply with some exceptions and modifications, but in garb of this power, a new law altogether cannot be framed by the Governor of the State. It is also concluded that in exercise of the power conferred upon the Governor in paragraph 5(1) of the Schedule V of the Constitution, the Governor has to act under same restrictions, which have to be observed by the Parliament or the Legislature of the State while making law and cannot override the fundamental rights of the citizen of India under Part III of the Constitution of India, taking it away altogether.
35. Per contra, learned Advocate General appearing for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has placed before us the Presidential Notification issued in the year 2007, declaring the scheduled areas in the State of Jharkhand. Learned Advocate General has also placed before us the Notification and Order dated 14.07.2016 issued by the State Government, to submit that the scheduled districts in the State of Jharkhand are characterized by low human development indices, backwardness, remoteness, poverty and since they are in average inferior to the social indicators in the State due to uneven topography, lack of water resources, loss in canopy average of forest and uncontrolled rapid industrialization, the notification had to be issued by the Governor for protecting the interests of the residents in the scheduled districts.
36. Learned Advocate General has placed Article 162 of the Constitution of India to show the extent of executive power of the State, which extends to the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make the laws. He has also placed Article 244 of the Constitution of India which deals with administration of scheduled areas and tribal areas, to which Schedule V of the Constitution applies, as also Articles 29, 38 and 46 of the Constitution of India in support of his contention that the State administration has to take special care to W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 50 protect the interests of minorities and the people belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the weaker sections of the society, and to protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitations. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in G. Ramadoss etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1970 SCC OnLine A.P. 277, wherein the Andhra Pradesh High Court had taken the view as follows:-
"15. In construing the provisions of paragraph 5 (1) of the Fifth Schedule, the non obstante clause with which it begins, must be given its full meaning. The use of the words "notwithstanding"
anything in this Constitution" makes it abundantly clear that while acting under paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule, the Governor of a State is invested with overriding powers to make by public notification any law relating to the administration and control of the Scheduled Areas despite the other provisions including those enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. In order to safeguard and protect the interests of Scheduled Tribes residing in Scheduled Areas who are economically, socially, politically, educationally and otherwise backward, the framers of the Constitution deemed fit and proper to invest the Governor of a State, who acts on the advice of his council of Ministers, with overriding powers under the aforesaid clause to make any law or modification in the existing law applicable to Scheduled Areas. Hence, in my considered opinion, any notification or regulation issued by the Governor under paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution, even if it contravenes the fundamental rights of any citizen, is valid and intra vires of the powers vested in him."
(Emphasis supplied.)
37. Learned Advocate General has again placed reliance upon the decision of the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Pulusam Krishna Murthy Vs. T. Sujan Kumar & Ors., reported in 2001 SCC OnLine A.P. 1044, wherein the Government notification dated 10.01.2000 issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh, reserving the post of teachers in the school in the scheduled areas to be filled up by the local scheduled tribe candidates only, was under challenge before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The majority view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was as follows :-
"227. In view of the judgment of Jagannatha Roa, J., in W.P. No.16918 of 1998 as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Samatha, we hold that whether or not fundamental rights can be ignored in enforcing the provisions of Paragraph 5(1) of V Schedule, reservation of all the posts of teachers in the schools W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 51 intended for citizens belonging to Scheduled Tribes in Scheduled Area, in favour of local Scheduled Tribes candidates is valid even under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, and the same does not suffer from any vice of arbitrariness and / or unreasonableness."
38. As stated earlier, the minority view in aforesaid decision was of the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court, opining that providing 100% reservation for Scheduled Tribes in scheduled areas offended Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and the Governor was not empowered to make such law in derogation to Part III or other provisions of the Constitution of India in exercise of his power under paragraph 5(1) Schedule V to the Constitution of India.
39. It may be stated at this place itself, that it is the same Judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court, which was under challenge before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao's case (supra), wherein the majority view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court has been annulled and the law has been laid down as detailed above, thus, confirming the minority view of the Chief Justice of that High Court.
40. After the Judgment in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao's case (supra) came, learned Advocate General tried to differentiate the Judgment, submitting that the said Judgment shall not be applicable to the facts of this case, inasmuch as, the question before the Hon'ble Apex Court was 100% reservation in favour of the Scheduled Tribes in the scheduled areas, whereas that is not the case in the State of Jharkhand. In the State of Jharkhand, what has been sought to be done is to make reservation on the ground of residence in favour of the residents of the scheduled districts, which include the persons belonging to unreserved category and all the reserved categories, to which, the benefit of reservation is applicable.
41. Learned Advocate General further submitted that Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India prohibits discrimination on the grounds "only" of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence, and these expressions are preceded by the word "only" and followed by the expression "or any of them", which play a very important role. It is submitted by the learned Advocate General that the discrimination is prohibited, only on any of the grounds mentioned above, but if any protective action is required to be taken under Articles 29, 38 and 46 of the Constitution of India, and the action is taken on any or more of those grounds, in combination with other factors, Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 52 shall not be attracted, even if it results in some discrimination to the other set of citizens. Learned Advocate General pointed out that in the present case, the cumulative factors of low human development indices, backwardness, remoteness, poverty, inferiority in the social indicators in the State due to uneven topography, lack of water resources, loss in canopy average of forest and uncontrolled rapid industrialization have been taken into consideration, while issuing the Notification and Order dated 14.07.2016 by the Governor of the State, in combination with one of the grounds of 'residence', and as such, Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India shall not be attracted in the present case. In support of his contention, learned Advocate General has also placed reliance upon that portion of Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Kailash Chand Sharma's case (supra), wherein it is clarified as follows:-
"14. ---------------. Coming to the first aspect, it must be noticed that the prohibitory mandate under Article 16(2) is not attracted if the alleged discrimination is on grounds not merely related to residence, but the factum of residence is only taken into account in addition to other relevant factors. This, in effect, is the import of the expression "only"."
42. Learned Advocate General, however, very fairly conceded that in view of the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao's case (supra), the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India cannot be said to be an Act of Parliament or of the State Legislature, and by the impugned Notification and Order dated 14.07.2016 none of the Act of the Parliament or the State Legislature is sought to be affected. Accordingly, the said notification and order may not stand the test laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao's case (supra).
43. The respondents and the intervener respondents, who have been selected and who have also been appointed in the scheduled districts, or the intervener respondents to whom the appointment letters could not be issued due to the interim order passed by this Court on 18.09.2019, are represented by learned senior counsels Sri Anil Kumar Sinha, Smt. Indrani Sen Choudhary, learned counsels M/S Rajiv Kumar Sinha, Rajiv Kumar, and other learned advocates. Learned senior counsel Sri Anil Kumar Sinha submitted that the petitioners do not have any case for consideration, as they took part in the selection process, knowing full well about the reservation made in favour of the residents of the scheduled districts, and having taken part in the selection process W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 53 and having failed in getting selected, they now cannot turn back and challenge the conditions laid down in the advertisement. In this connection, learned senior counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. S. Vinodh Kumar & Ors., reported in (2007) 8 SCC 100. Learned senior counsel has submitted that the Governor of the State is fully competent under paragraph 5(1) of Scheduled V of the Constitution of India to issue the notification making reservation in favour of the residents of the scheduled districts in order to secure justice - social, economic and political, to the residents suffering variously in the backdrop of the conditions mentioned in the notification. Learned senior counsel in this connection has also relied upon Article 46 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India, the State is empowered to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and as such, there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 in the present case. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the scheduled area cannot be equated with the non-scheduled area. Learned senior counsel has pointed out that such action had also taken place in the State of Jharkhand previously and has been upheld up to the Hon'ble Apex Court. In this connection, learned senior counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India & Ors, Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Ors., reported in (2010) 4 SCC 50, wherein where, by Act 14 of 1874, Santhal Paragraphganas Division and Chutia Nagpur Division (now known as Chhota Nagpur Division) were created and in these scheduled districts, tribal communities were created and accorded a certain degree of autonomy to regulate their affairs on the basis of their own conventions and traditions. Many of these communities chose their leaders through an informal consensus and it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the Panchayats located in those scheduled areas, the exclusive representation of the Scheduled Tribes in the Chairperson positions of the same bodies is constitutionally permissible, as they warranted exceptional treatment with regard to the reservation. It was further held that rationale behind imposing an upper ceiling of 50% in reservations for higher education and public employment cannot be readily extended to the domain of political representation at the panchayat level in scheduled areas.
44. Learned senior counsel has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.G. Ashok & Ors. Vs. Kerala Public Service W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 54 Commission & Ors., reported in (2001) 5 SCC 419, wherein where, the candidates were prohibited from making application for appointment for the same post of Jr. Health Inspector Gr.-II in all the 14 districts in the State of Kerala, by putting a restriction to the effect that applications should not be sent for more than one district, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that though a candidate was prohibited from applying in more than one district, he was free to choose any district of his choice and thus, the only thing was that the candidate was not entitled to apply for the same post in more than one district at a time. In such a case, the right of the candidate was not curtailed as he / she was not prevented from choosing the district of his or her choice. It is submitted that this decision has also been followed by this High Court in the case of appointments made in the Police Department in the State of Jharkhand, in The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Sri Anil Kumar Mehta & Ors., reported in 2014 (3) JLJR 346. Learned senior counsel concluded that even in the present case, the candidates were not deprived from applying in their own district or in the non-scheduled districts of the State, and their rights cannot be said to be curtailed in any manner whatsoever.
45. The other learned counsels, appearing for the similarly situated intervener respondents have also adopted the submission of the learned senior counsel and they have also argued that there is no illegality in the Notification and Order dated 14.07.2016 or in the subsequent advertisements contained in Annexures-4 and 4/1 to the lead writ application, providing reservation in favour of the local residents of the scheduled districts. Learned counsels have submitted that taking into consideration the various factors, it was found necessary to protect the interests of the residents in the scheduled districts. Learned counsels have also submitted that even otherwise it would be of immense benefit to the school going children in the scheduled districts, if they are taught in their own tribal language by the local teachers, than the outsiders, who may not be well conversant with the local language. It is lastly submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao's case (supra), as has been done in the said case, appointments already made should not be disturbed. It is pointed out by the learned Advocate General that by now, about 80% persons have already been appointed and as such, the appointments already made should not be disturbed.
W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017and analogous matters 55
46. Learned counsels for the JSSC have only clarified the stand of JSSC that it has followed the dictates of the State Government.
47. An interlocutory application has also been filed relating to Panchayat Service, which is not related with these writ applications. The anxiety of these intervener respondents is that due to the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by this Court, their selection process has also been stalled by the State Government. They only need a clarification that by virtue of the said interim order, their selection process may not be affected.
48. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, it would be appropriate to take a look at the Presidential Notification and the impugned Notification and Order dated 14.07.2016. The Presidential Notification which is in force, declaring scheduled areas in the State of Jharkhand, was issued on 11th April, 2007, which reads as follows:-
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Legislative Department) NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 11th April, 2007 G.S.R. 285 (E)- The following Order made by the President is published for general information:-
"C.O.229"
The Scheduled Areas (State of Jharkhand) Order, 2007 In exercise at the powers conferred by sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 6 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India, the President hereby rescinds the Scheduled Areas (States of Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh) Order, 2003 in so far as it relates to the areas now comprised in the State of Jharkhand and in consultation with the Governor of that State, is pleased to make the following Order, namely:-
1. (1) Thus Order may be called the Scheduled Areas (State of Jharkhand) Order, 2007.
(2) It shall come into force at once.
2. The areas specified below are hereby redefined to be the Scheduled Areas within the State of Jharkhand:-
JHARKHAND
1) Ranchi District
2) Lohardagga District
3) Gumla District
4) Simdega District
5) Latehar District
6) East-Singhbhum District
7) West Singhbhum District W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 56
8) Saraikela-Kharsawan District
9) Sahebganj District
10) Dumka District
11) Pakur District
12) Jamtara District
13) Palamu District-Rabda and Bokariya Panchayats of Satbarwa Block.
14) Godda District-Sunderpahari and Boarijor Blocks.
Explanation - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the said areas are the same, by whatever name called, as were notified as Scheduled Areas as part of the erstwhile State of Bihar vide C.O.109 [the Scheduled Area (States of Bihar, Gujrat, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa) Order, 1977.
3. Any reference in the preceding paragraph to the territorial division by whatever name indicated shall be construed as a reference to the territorial division of that name as existing at the commencement of this Order.
A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM, President [F.No 19(8)/2006-1] K.N. CHATURVEDI, Secy.
49. A plain reading of paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India (quoted in paragraph 7 above), shows that it starts with non-obstante clause "notwithstanding anything in this Constitution" and empowers the Governor to issue public notification directing that any particular Act of the Parliament or of the State Legislature shall not apply to a scheduled area or any in part thereof in the State, or shall apply with such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in the notification. The Order No.5939 dated 14.7.2016 issued by the Governor of the State in exercise of the aforesaid power, reads as follows:-
Government of Jharkhand Deptt. of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha Order Ranchi, Dated 14.07.2016 No. 5939 / Whereas, under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India, the Governor may, by public notification direct that any particular Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of the State shall not apply to a Schedule Area or any part thereof in the State subject to such exceptions and modifications as specified in the notification.
And whereas, the Scheduled Area in the State are characterized by low Human Development Indices, backwardness, W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 57 remoteness poverty and whereas the social indicators of the Scheduled Areas are on an average, inferior to the average of social indicators in the State due to uneven topography, lack of water resources, loss in canopy coverage of forest and uncontrolled rapid industrialization;
And whereas, recognizing the factors identified above, the Tribal Advisory Council of Jharkhand has recommended issuing of a notification by the Governor for suspension of eligibility conditions as enshrined in various appointment rules for the appointment of class 3 and class 4 posts at district level for a period of 10 years in the 13 districts namely- Sahebganj, Pakur, Dumka, Jamtara, Latehar, Ranchi, Khunti, Gumla, Lohardagga, Simdega, East Singhbhum, West Singhbhum and Sraikela-Kharsawan for appointment of cent-percent District level class-3 and class-4 posts by the local residents of the district concerned;
And whereas, the Governor of Jharkhand in order to improve the quality of people in the Scheduled Areas, by providing additional opportunities of employment, in favour of the local residents of Scheduled Areas;
The following notification shall come into effect from the date of its publications in the official Gazette.
50. The Notification No.5938 dated 14.7.2016 issued by the Governor of the State in exercise of the power under paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India, reads as follows:-
Government of Jharkhand Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Notification Ranchi, Dated 14.07.2016 No.14 / Sthaneeyata Neeti-14-01/2015/5938 In exercise of powers conferred by the provisions by sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India, the Governor of Jharkhand, hereby, directs that the provisions regarding "eligibility of the appointment" mentioned in the various appointment rules as per list enclosed, Government may amend from time to time, framed by the State Government under article 309 of the Constitution for the appointment to the district cadre posts, shall be deemed to the modified and enforced up to the extent as specified, hereinafter, namely:-
"Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or any other Act, Order, Direction, Rules or Law for the time being in force, only local residents of the districts namely - Sahebganj, Pakur, Dumka, Jamtara, Latehar, Ranchi, Khunti, Gumla, Lohardagga, Simdega, East Singhbhum, West Singhbhum and W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 58 Sraikela-Kharsawan, shall be eligible for recruitment to the vacancies arising in class-3 and class-4 posts of the district cadre in various department of the concerned districts, for a period of 10 years from the date of issue of this notification."
By order in the name of the Governor of Jharkhand Sd/- Nidhi Khare Principal Secretary to the Government
51. A plain reading of these notification and order show that the Governor of Jharkhand has directed that the provisions regarding "eligibility of the appointment" mentioned in the various appointment rules, as per the list enclosed, and as framed by the State Government under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, for the appointment to district cadre posts shall be deemed to be modified to the extent that cent-percent Class-III and Class-IV posts in various department in the 13 scheduled districts have been reserved for the residents of the concerned districts only. By the notification only the service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India have been sought to be modified, and even the list attached to the notification does not contain any Act of the Parliament or of the State Legislature. It is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao's case (supra), that the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India are neither the law enacted by the Parliament nor by the State Legislature. This apart, though in the cases of G. Ramadoss (supra) and Pulusam Krishna Murty (supra), it has been held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that the use of word "notwithstanding anything in this Constitution" makes it absolutely clear that while acting under paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule, the Governor of the State is vested with overriding powers to make by public notification any law relating to the administration and control of the scheduled areas, despite the other provisions including those enshrined in Part-III of the Constitution of India, but, these decisions have been annulled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao's case (supra), clearly and specifically holding that in garb of the non-obstante clause as aforesaid, such power cannot be exercised by the Governor of the State overriding the fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution.
52. We are also bound by the conclusion of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao's case (supra), that the Governor in exercise of powers under Paragraph 5(1) Schedule V of the Constitution, can exercise the W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 59 powers concerning any particular Act of the Parliament or the Legislature of the State, directing that such law shall not apply to the scheduled areas or any part thereof, or shall apply subject to any exceptions and modifications, but by that, a new law cannot be framed by the Governor of the State. It has been made clear by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the area reserved for the Governor under the provisions of paragraph 5(1) Schedule V of the Constitution is prescribed. He cannot act beyond its purview and has to exercise his power within the four corners of the provision.
53. We also find that by the impugned notification issued by the Governor of the State, 100% reservation has been provided in favour of the residents of the scheduled districts, totally ignoring the fundamental rights of the citizens residing out of the scheduled districts, and as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such reservation is not permissible under the Constitution, as the outer limit is 50%, as specified in Indra Sawhney's case (supra).
54. The submissions of the learned Advocate General and learned counsels for the respondents that in order to overcome the factors of low human development indices, backwardness, poverty etc., in the scheduled districts and to secure justice - social, economic and political, the notification had to be issued by the Governor of the State for protecting the interests of the residents in the scheduled districts, and even otherwise it would be of immense benefit to the school going children in the scheduled districts, if they are taught in their own tribal language by the local teachers, than the outsiders, who may not be well conversant with the local language, are only fit to be rejected. This "sons of the soil" policies prescribing reservation or preference based on domicile or residence has already been decried by the Apex Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra), holding that Parliament alone has been given the right to enact an exception to the ban on discrimination based on residence. We find no logic in the submission that it would be of immense benefit to the school going children in the scheduled districts, if they are taught in their own tribal language by the local teachers, as the education of the school going children cannot be compromised with merit, giving 100% reservation in favour of the teachers of the same district and prohibiting the appointment of more meritorious teachers, even if available.
55. We also do not find any merit in the submission of learned Advocate General that the decision in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao's case (supra), shall not be applicable to the facts of this case, inasmuch as, the question before the W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 60 Hon'ble Apex Court was 100% reservation in favour of the Scheduled Tribes in the scheduled areas, which was not the basis of "residence", as in the State of Jharkhand. In Kailash Chand Sharma's case (supra), A.V.S Narsimha Rao's case (supra) and Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "residence" by itself cannot be a ground to accord any preferential treatment for reservation, and it is not possible to compartmentalize the State into districts with a view to offer employment to the residents of that district on a preferential basis. In Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra), the Apex Court has even condemned the wholesome reservation made by some of the State Governments on the basis of "domicile" or "residence". It is also held in these cases that only the Parliament is empowered under Articles 16(3) and 35(a) of the Constitution of India to enact any such law and this power is not available to the State Legislatures, and consequently, this power is not available to the Governor of the State as well.
56. We accordingly find, hold and conclude that the Notification No. 5938 and Order No, 5939 dated 14.7.2016, issued by the respondent State as contained in Annexures-6 and 6/1 of the lead writ application, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and must be held ultra vires Articles 14, 13(2), 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The impugned notification and order also violate Articles 16(3) and 35(a-i) of the Constitution of India, as such power is vested only in the Parliament and not in the State Legislatures. Consequently, the Governor of the State also cannot exercise such power. The same is ultra vires paragraph 5(1) of Schedule V of the Constitution of India as well, as the Governor has transgressed the limitations, in the garb of non-obstante clause therein.
57. For the reasons detailed above, both these Notification No. 5938 and Order No. 5939 dated 14.7.2016, as contained in Annexures-6 and 6/1 of the lead writ application are accordingly, quashed.
58. Consequently, paragraph 5(iii) of the Advertisement No. 21/2016 published on 28th December, 2016 as modified by Advertisement dated 4.2.2017, as contained in Annexures-4 and 4/1 of the lead writ application, containing the stipulation that as against the vacant posts of Trained Graduate Teacher in the scheduled districts, only the local residents of those scheduled districts can apply, also cannot be sustained in the eyes of law for the same reasons, and this paragraph of the advertisement, is hereby, also quashed.
W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017and analogous matters 61
59. This brings us to the question about the appointments already made of the candidates belonging to the scheduled districts. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents and the intervener respondents that similar was the situation in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao's case (supra), decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein the appointments already made in the scheduled areas with respect to the Scheduled Tribe candidates of those areas have been saved by the Hon'ble Apex Court, irrespective of the fact that the Government's notification dated 10.1.2000 was held ultra vires and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
60. The facts of Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao's case (supra) were quite different, as have already been discussed in paragraph 23 of our Judgment. In the said case, the candidates were working for about 30 years, inasmuch as, they were appointed pursuant to the Govt. notification issued on 5.11.1986 itself. Though the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal quashed the notification and the challenge to that order before the Hon'ble Apex Court was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.3.1998, the Government of Andhra Pradesh came out with yet another illegal notification dated 25.4.1987, which was also finally quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6437 of 1998 allowing the appeal by Judgment dated 18.12.1998. Thereafter, the State of Andhra Pradesh came out with yet another illegal notification dated 10.1.2000, which was held ultra vires by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao's case (supra). Thus, the candidates already appointed in the year 1987 or afterwards had already worked for more than 30 years and it was in that peculiar circumstance, their appointments were saved with the condition that the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana shall not attempt similar exercise in future.
61. Such is not the case in the present writ applications in hand. The local residents of the scheduled districts have been appointed only in the month of July, 2019 and they are working since then. Their appointments are fresh appointments and indeed, in teeth of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Such appointments cannot be protected in law. Indeed, it has been pointed out through Annexure-7 to the lead writ application that the State Government had been contemplating to impose such unreasonable and unconstitutional restrictions for all the districts in the State. We cannot be a mute spectator to such illegal actions of the State Government and any such attempt by the State Government has to be stalled at its very inception. Such appointments, ignoring the rights of more meritorious candidates, only on the basis of residence, were W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 62 absolutely illegal and unconstitutional from its very inception and have to be quashed.
62. In the result, the appointments of the Trained Graduate Teachers made pursuant to the Advertisement No. 21/2016 published on 28.12.2016 as modified by Advertisement dated 4.2.2017, as contained in Annexures-4 and 4/1 of the lead writ application, in the scheduled districts relating to the local residents of those districts only, are hereby, quashed. Even those appointees, if any, who may not be a party in these writ applications, shall be treated to be represented in representative capacity by the respondents and the intervener respondents, in view of orders dated 21.02.2019, 24.04.2019 and 18.09.2019 passed by this Court.
63. So far as the appointments made in the non-scheduled districts are concerned, these are not under challenge in these writ applications. Though vide paragraph 5(i) of the advertisements as contained in Annexures-4 and 4/1 to the lead writ application the candidates were given the choice to apply against the va- cancies of only one district of their choice, and were prohibited from applying in more than one district, but they were free to choose the district of their choice, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.G. Ashok's case (supra), and followed in the State of Jharkhand in Anil Kumar Mehta's case (supra). In that case the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the law as follows:-
"13. Though a candidate is prohibited from applying in more than one district, he is free to choose any district of his choice and thus the only thing is that the candidate is not entitled to apply for the same post in more than one district at a time. Here, the right of the candidate is not curtailed as he/she is not prevented from choosing the district of his/her choice. At the same time, if every person is permitted to apply for all districts the number of applications received by the Commission will be 14 times the number of applications now being received with the result that the Commission will be doing a futile exercise of selection work in the other 13 districts, as a candidate can after all accept appointment in only one district. Considering all these aspects the Commission has imposed the restriction on candidates from applying in more than one district in response to one and the same notification. The restriction does not tantamount to the denial of opportunity to a candidate for applying to any post." (Emphasis supplied.)
64. Accordingly, we hereby, direct that all the 8423 posts of Trained Graduate Teacher in the Government Secondary Schools in the scheduled districts W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous matters 63 of the State of Jharkhand, as detailed in the Notification No. 5938 and Order No. 5939 dated 14.7.2016, as contained in Annexures-6 and 6/1 of the lead writ application, be advertised afresh and fresh selection process be undertaken in accordance with law.
65. We hereby, clarify that all those candidates who were eligible to apply in response to the Advertisement No. 21/2016, as contained in Annexures-4 and 4/1 of the lead writ application, shall be entitled to apply in the fresh selection process, irrespective of any barrier, if any, as to their age.
66. We also propose to make it abundantly clear that by the ad-interim order dated 18.9.2019 passed by this Court in these writ applications, the selection process was never stayed by the Court in the non-scheduled districts, though, as informed to us, it had erroneously been taken by the State Government like that. There was no stay for appointments on any post in the non-scheduled districts, or for that matter there was no stay for the appointments even in the scheduled districts, rather, only the operation of the Notification No. 5938 dated 14.7.2016 was stayed by this Court. In other words, the appointments could be continued to be made even in the scheduled districts, ignoring the aforesaid notification.
67. In the result, all these writ applications succeed and are accordingly, allowed with the directions and observations as above. The pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
(H.C. Mishra, J.) Shree Chandrashekhar, J:- I Agree.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Deepak Roshan, J:- I Agree.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, RANCHI Dated the 21st September, 2020.
D.S./R.Kr./B.S. / AFR