Disposed

Basudeo Gope v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Jun 2019WPC/1817/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought appointment consideration under the S.C. Agrawal Commission recommendations. Court disposed of the writ petition by directing authorities to compare facts with W.P.(S) No.5481 of 2012 and extend benefits within 12 weeks if facts match.

What did the court decide?

Direction to verify facts against W.P.(S) No.5481 of 2012 and extend benefits within 12 weeks if similar.

Basudeo Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand — Education and Admissions | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 1817 of 2019

¶3

Basudeo Gope.

¶4

Lal Kishore Prasad.

¶5

Shambhu Sahu.

¶6

Brajesh Kumar Mishra.

¶7

Bimal Labh.

¶8

Sheo Shankar Dayal. … …Petitioner

¶9

-Versus-

¶10

The State of Jharkhand.

¶11

Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. Sadar,

¶12

District-Hazaribagh.

¶13

The Vice Chancellor, Vinobha Bhave University, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S. Sadar, District-Hazaribagh.

¶14

The Registrar, Vinobha Bhave University, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S. Sadar, District-Hazaribagh.

¶15

The Commissioner cum Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, HRD Department, Higher Education, Skill Development Department, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.

¶16

The Deputy Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, HRD Department, Higher Education, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶17

The Principal Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribagh, P.O. And P.S. Sadar, District- Hazaribagh.

¶18

The Director, Govt. of Jharkhand, HRD Department, Higher Education, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, Dist.

¶19

Ranchi. … …Respondents

¶20

¶21

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK

¶22

For the Petitioner :Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasasd, G.P. I.

¶23

¶24

05/ 18.06.2019 The petitioner has approached this Court for consideration of their date

¶25

of appointment on the basis of recommendation of Justice S.C.Agrawal Commission and subsequently to extend the consequential benefits to them from the date of their initial appointment.

¶26

¶27

At the very outset, Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is now no more res integra and this writ application is squarely covered by the order passed on 05.01.2018 by this Court in W.P.(S) No.5481 of 2012. Learned Counsel further submits that this case may be disposed of in terms of orders passed in the aforesaid case.

¶28

No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents very fairly submits that issues involved in this writ petition has already been decided by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S) No.5481 of 2012 and if the case of the petitioner is found to be same and similar to the case of the petitioners in W.P.(S) No.5481 of 2012 , the present petitioners are also entitled for the same benefits.

¶29

In view of the fair submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of in terms of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.5481 of 2012 and if the case of the present petitioners are found to be same and similar to the cases of the petitioners in W.P.(S) No.5481 of 2012 , the present petitioners are also entitled for the same benefits.

¶30

Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondents-authorities to verify the factual aspects/issues involved in the present writ petition vis. a vis. factual aspects/issues involved in W.P.(S) No.5481 of 2012 and if the facts/issues involved in the present writ petition is found to be similar to the aforementioned writ petition, the same benefits may be extended to the present petitioners also in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶32

[Dr. S.N.Pathak,J.]

¶33

P.K.S.

Basudeo Gope v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basudeo Gope v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Kumar Shrivastava Vs Water Resources Department

Surendra Mahli Vs Drinking Water And Sanitation

Sudhir Chandra Chaudhary Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Lalita Pandey Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ajit Kumar Panigrahi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Revenue Registration and Land Reforms Deptt

Nabin Kumar Jha Vs Transport