Jharkhand High Court
Jitender Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 September, 2018
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S. N. Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3884 of 2018
Jitender Kumar ... ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Dy. Commissioner, Hazaribagh
3. The District Supdt. Of Education, Department of Education, Hazaribagh
4. The District Education Officer, Department of Education, Hazaribagh
5. The Deputy Supdt of Education, Department of Education, Hazaribagh
6. The Regional Director (Education), Department of Education, Hazaribagh
... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK
-----
For Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For Respondents : Mrs. Chandra Prabha, SC -IV
----------
04/ 19.09.2018 Heard the parties.
Petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to issued appointment letter in favour of the petitioner for the post of Intermediate Trained Teacher.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the short fact of the case is that the petitioner was working as para-teacher in Rajkrit Utkarmit Madya Vidyalaya, Koderma in the State of Jharkhand. Pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2015 floated for appointment to the post of Inter Trained Teachers for Class-I to V, the petitioner having the requisite qualifications, applied for the same under non-para category. In the advertisement itself it has been mentioned that 50% vacancies were reserved for para teachers whereas, rest of the vacancies were earmarked for non-para category candidates and as such, there was no restriction to para-teacher to apply under non-para category. It is the case of the petitioner that he successfully competed in the recruitment process and his name appeared in the merit list and he was allowed to participate in the counselling for the purpose of verification of his testimonials and educational certificates. But appointment letter is not issued in his favour and he was informed that his candidature has been cancelled on the ground that he has applied and qualified under the non-para category suppressing the fact that he actually belong to para-teacher category. Aggrieved thereto, the petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of his grievances.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ application is squarely covered by the order passed on 11.05.2018 by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in L.P.A. No. 186 of 2017 (Pawan Singh Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and another case. Learned counsel further submits that this case may be disposed of in terms of orders passed in the aforesaid case.
2On the other hand, learned counsel for appearing on behalf of the respondent-State very fairly submits that issues involved in this writ petition has already been decided on 11.05.2018 by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in L.P.A. No. 186 of 2017 (Pawan Singh Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and another case and the present writ petition may be disposed of in view of order passed in above mentioned cases. Learned counsel further argues that fresh counseling can only be organized if sufficient number of vacancies exists and in case of no vacancy pursuant to advertisement in question, it is not possible for the State to take steps for fresh counseling of these petitioners.
In view of the fair submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ application are being disposed of in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in L.P.A. No. 186 of 2017 (Pawan Singh Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and another case and if the cases of the present petitioners are found same and similar to the cases of the petitioners in L.P.A. No. 186 of 2017 (Pawan Singh Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and another case and if the seats are lying vacant, the present petitioner is also entitled for the same benefits.
The Division of the this Hon'ble Court in L.P.A. No. 186 of 2017 has held that, "We, hereby, direct the respondent-State to initiate the counselling of the original petitioners, as early as, possible and practicable, so that it can be completed within a period of four months from today."
Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondent-authorities to verify the factual aspects/ issues involved in the present writ petition vis-à-vis factual aspects/ issues involved in L.P.A. No. 186 of 2017 (Pawan Singh Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and another case and if the facts/ issues involved in the present writ petition is found to be similar to the aforementioned cases, the same benefits may be extended to the present writ petitioner also, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) punit/-