Baldeo Prasad Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand Thro the Principal Secretary Human Resource Development Department

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nawin Kumar, Advocate Mr. Arvind Prajapati, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. J.F. Toppo, GA-V Ms. Moushmi Chatterjee, AC to GA-V

¶21

¶22

I.A. No. 998 of 2024

¶23

3/ 06.03.2024 This interlocutory application has been filed for impleading the necessary parties in the array of the respondents.

¶24

Having cause shown sufficient in the interlocutory application, the necessary parties as mentioned in paragraph-1 be allowed to be impleaded as respondent nos. 9 and 10 in the array of the respondents.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to do the necessary correction in the cause title with red ink in course of day.

¶26

This interlocutory application stands allowed.

¶27

W.P.(S) No. 304 of 2024

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to allow him to participate in the counselling process in the respective districts for which he has applied for consideration of his candidature under Para and Non-Para categories for remaining

¶30

2

¶31

vacancies of Intermediate Trained Teachers (classes I to V / VI to VIII) and if the petitioner is found eligible, he may be suitably appointed as he has already applied against the vacancies in different districts in the year 2015 and the candidates having lesser marks than the others have been called and allowed to participate in the counselling.

¶32

At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2378 of 2019 , in the case of Paras Nath Mandal Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors . and other analogous cases, which was decided on 16.02.2022 with following directions:

¶33

“ 18. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, I hereby direct the respondents to initiate process of counseling for the present petitioners by way of last opportunity, since they have obtained more marks than the last selected candidates in the merit list. The petitioners shall approach the Deputy Commissioners of the concerned Districts, as early as possible, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner shall initiate the process of counseling after giving proper notice to the petitioners by way of Press Communique, advertising the notice in the local newspaper having the wide circulation in the concerned Districts and also by putting the notice on the Notice Board of the Office of concerned District Superintendent of Education and thereafter, the entire process of counseling be completed within a period of further four weeks subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria and also if the present petitioners have secured more marks than the last selected candidates.

¶34

Let the entire process be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.

¶35

19. Let it be made clear that no further counselling shall be held for any reasons whatsoever as the advertisement for appointment of these teachers are of 2015 and the aforesaid directions have been issued in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, which shall be not taken as precedent.”

¶36

Thereafter, the State of Jharkhand challenged the said order dated 16.2.2022 in L.P.A No. 203 of 2022 ( The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Paras Nath Mandal ) and other analogous cases, wherein the Division Bench has modified the order, which are as follows-

¶37

57. This Court, on entirety of facts and circumstances, is of the view that the order passed by learned Single Judge

¶38

3

¶39

needs no interference by this Court and the direction so passed by learned Single Judge needs no interference by this Court and is required to be complied with at an earliest as the vacancies is of the year 2015 and it must be put to logical end without snatching right of candidates, if they are otherwise eligible. Therefore, the appellants-State are hereby directed to:

¶40

I. Initiate the process of counseling forthwith for the present petitioners by way of last opportunity as it is alleged they have obtained more marks than the last selected candidates in the merit list in the respective districts.

¶41

II. The petitioners shall approach the Deputy Commissioners of the concerned Districts, as early as possible, preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

III. However, in the meantime, the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district shall give proper notice to the petitioners by way of Press Communique, advertising the notice in the local newspaper having the wide circulation in the concerned Districts and also by putting the notice on the Notice Board of the Office of concerned District Superintendent of Education.

¶43

IV. This Court hopes and trusts that the entire process of counseling will be completed within a period of further eight weeks subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria and also if the present petitioners have secured more marks than the last selected candidates.

¶44

V. It is made clear that the entire process of selection shall be made strictly in accordance with relevant rules/regulations and judicial pronouncements, as mentioned above, within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

¶45

VI. Let it be made clear that no further counselling shall be held for any reasons whatsoever as the advertisement for appointment of these teachers are of 2015 and the aforesaid directions have been issued in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, which shall be not taken as precedent.

¶46

Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the order dated 16.02.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2378 of 2019 and other analogous cases as well as the order dated 15.09.2023 passed by learned Division Bench in the aforesaid L.P.As. It is further submitted that the process of counselling in terms of order dated 15.09.2023 passed in L.P.A No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous cases has not yet started and as such the respondent authorities may be directed to include the petitioner also in the said counselling since he has secured higher marks than the candidates who have been called for

¶47

4

¶48

counselling.

¶49

Reference may be made to order dated 16.10.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1233 of 2022 and four other cases, whereby learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand appearing in respective cases on the said date were directed to seek instruction as to whether the Deputy Commissioners of concerned districts have issued notices to the concerned para teachers by way of press communique in terms with order dated 15.09.2023 passed in L.P.A No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous cases.

¶50

Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that as per instructions, press communique has not yet been issued by the Deputy Commissioners of the concerned districts.

¶51

In view of fair submissions of the parties, I hereby direct the respondent authorities to first verify the factual aspect involved in the present writ petition vis-à-vis the factual aspect/issues involved in W.P.(S) No. 2378 of 2019 [Paras Nath Mandal Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.] and other analogous cases as well as L.P.A No. 203 of 2022 [The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Paras Nath Mandal] and other analogous cases. If on verification/scrutiny, the fact/issue involved in the present case is found to be similar to the said batch of writ petitions as well as L.P.As, the same benefit may be extended to the present petitioner also while following the direction as contained in the order dated 15.09.2023 passed by learned Division Bench in L.P.A No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous cases.

¶52

With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands allowed.

¶53

(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)

¶54

R.Kr.

Baldeo Prasad Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand Thro the Principal Secretary Human Resource Development Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldeo Prasad Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand Thro the Principal Secretary Human Resource Development Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Ismail Ashrafi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhuwan Bhaskar Vs Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences through Its Director

Jagannath Tripathy Vs Health

Sachindra Saran And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Sarita Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhupendra Nath Mistry Vs the State of Jharkhand