Dismissed

Jitendra Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Mar 2024WPC/1353/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P.(S) No. 1353 of 2024, the High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the petition seeking direction for counseling participation. The court held that the petitioners' case was fully covered by existing Division Bench orders, rendering further relief unnecessary. The petition was disposed of by applying the principles laid down in L.P.A. No. 510 of 2023 and analogous cases, which mandated specific co

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 510 of 2023 and analogous cases, with no new prayer granted.

Jitendra Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand — Education and Admissions | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 1353 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1353 of 2024

¶4

Jitendra Mahto

¶5

Gajendra Giri

¶6

Abhimanyu Prasad Mehta

¶7

Ritu Basant Mahto

¶8

Puran Chand Prajapati … Petitioners -Versus-

¶9

The State of Jharkhand

¶10

The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶11

The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Raj Bhasa and Administrative Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶12

The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶13

The Director, Primary Education (Directorate of Education), School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶14

The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh 7. The District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh 8. The Deputy Commissioner, Khunti 9. The District Superintendent of Education, Khunti 10. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi 11. The District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi 12. The Deputy Commissioner, Simdega 13. The District Superintendent of Education, Simdega 14. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh 15. The District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh 16. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla 17. The District Superintendent of Education, Gumla 18. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro 19. The District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro 20. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad 21. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad 22. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra 23. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra 24. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa 25. The District Superintendent of Education, Garhwa

¶15

The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau 27. The District Superintendent of Education, Palamau

¶16

The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar

¶17

The District Superintendent of Education, Latehar

¶18

The Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga

¶19

The District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga … Respondents

¶20

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ankit Apurva, Advocate For the State : Mr. Deepak Kumar, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-III -----

¶21

¶22

W.P.(S) No. 1353 of 2024

¶23

04/22.03.2024 Heard Mr. Ankit Apurva, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the State.

¶24

The prayer is made in this writ petition for direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to participate in counselling process to be conducted in respective districts under non-para categories for the post of Assistant Teachers.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in identical situation, batch of writ petitions was decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.189 of 2024 and analogous cases and vide judgment dated 08.02.2024, the learned Single Judge has been pleased to allow the prayer with regard to counselling of the petitioners of those cases. He also submits that the similar order was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.510 of 2023 and analogous cases, which were disposed of vide judgment dated 31.01.2024 and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was affirmed and in paragraph 33 of the said judgment, further directions have been given.

¶26

Learned counsel for the State submits that the case of the petitioners is covered in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the said L.P.As.

¶27

Paragraph 33 of the judgment passed in L.P.A. No.510 of 2023 and analogous cases reads as under:

¶28

“33. Since it was the specific case of the writ petitioners that they were never called for counseling and that candidates securing less marks than the writ petitioners were called for counseling and were selected, it would be important to issue the following clarifications / directions in consonance with the specific stand of the various writ petitioners in the batch of cases involved in the impugned order though this Court is not inclined to differ with the findings and directions issued vide order dated 15.09.2023

¶29

¶30

W.P.(S) No. 1353 of 2024

¶31

passed in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022:-

¶32

(a) Only those candidates are to be called for counseling who have never been called for counseling earlier in one or the other district irrespective of the fact as to whether they had participated in the counseling or not.

¶33

(b) To enable the candidate to participate in the fresh counseling the concerned respondent shall verify whether a candidate below in the merit list in the concerned district has been ultimately selected irrespective of the fact as to whether such a candidate had joined or not. If that be so, then only such candidate be permitted to appear in the fresh counseling.

¶34

(c) There should be one counseling to be conducted simultaneously in all the districts as was directed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 and other analogous cases which has been upheld in L.P.A. No. 168 of 2017. ”

¶35

In view of the above and considering that the case of the petitioners is covered in light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in said L.P.As., this petition is being disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in L.P.A. No.510 of 2023 and analogous cases.

¶36

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶37

Ajay/

Jitendra Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Mahto 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samrup Ramani Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranjan Kumar Vishwakarma Alias Ranjan Kr Vishwakarma Alias Munna Vs the State of Jharkhand

Usha Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sidhnath Prasad Singh Vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Chhotu Yadav Alias Chhotu Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Singh Alias Vijay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand