Disposed

Pankaj Kumar v. Education

Jharkhand HC14 Jun 2016WPC/966/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition for appointment as a Trained Graduate Teacher, the High Court of Jharkhand directed the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka, to consider the petitioner's pending representation and dispose of it within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka to consider the petitioner's representation and dispose of it within two months.

Pankaj Kumar Vs Education — Education and Admissions | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 966 of 2016

¶3

Pankaj Kumar son of Sri Prem Chand Mahto, resident of villageTopchachi, P.O.- Topchachi, P.S.- Topchachi, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. …......... Petitioner.

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶7

The District Superintendent of Education (Dumka), District- Dumka, Jharkhand. .. ... ...Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Lina Shakti, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Jayant F. Toppo, Advocate

¶10

2/14.06.2016: In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent concerned to consider his representation dated 18.12.2015 for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher.

¶11

The petitioner claims that he has qualified in the selection process by which, assistant teachers are to be appointed in different schools in the State of Jharkhand. The counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner was not allowed to take part in the 5th Counseling on the ground that he is a student of “science” and not of “Hindi”. The petitioner claims that he has filed representation on 18.12.2015 before the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka, ventilating his grievance, which is still pending and and has not yet been disposed of.

¶12

The counsel for the State submits that if the representation of the petitioner is still pending and no decision has yet been taken, the same will be considered at the earliest.

¶13

Regard being had to nature of the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner, I direct the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka to consider the representation of the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of two months form the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶14

The writ petition stand disposed of, accordingly.

¶15

(ANANDA SEN , J)

¶16

Anu/-

Pankaj Kumar v. Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar v. Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alexia Ekka Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Pinki Sardar Vs Human Resources Department

Sohwa Devi Vs Central Coalfield Ltd. Through The Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors.

Indradeo Prasad Burnwal Vs Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And Anr.

Baleshwar Das Vs Animal Husbandary Department

Arun Kumar Ghosh Vs Rural Dev Dept