Sarita Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Sarita Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Directions to the respondent authorities to (i) first verify the factual aspect of the present writ petition vis-a-vis the Paras Nath Mandal batch of writ petitions and L.P.As, and (ii) if the fact/issue is found similar, extend the same benefit to the present petitioners while following the directions contained in the Division Bench order dated 15.09.2023 passed in L.P.A No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous cases (allowing participation in the counselling for remaining Intermediate Trained Teacher vacancies by way of last opportunity).

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, who applied in 2015 against vacancies of Intermediate Trained Teachers for Classes 1 to 5 / 6 to 8 (Para and Non-Para categories) and secured more marks than the last selected candidates, should be directed to be allowed to participate in the counselling process in their respective districts for remaining vacancies and, if found eligible, suitably appointed. +1 more

Court's answer

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

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed the respondent authorities to first verify the factual aspect involved in the present writ petition against that involved in W.P.(S) No. 2378 of 2019 [Paras Nath Mandal v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.] and L.P.A No. 203 of 2022 [The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Paras Nath Mandal] and the analogous cases; if on verification/scrutiny the fact/issue is found similar, the same benefit is to be extended to the present petitioners while following the directions of the Division Bench order dated 15.09.2023 in L.P.A No. 203 of 2022 (i.e., counselling by way of last opportunity for candidates securing more marks than the last selected candidates).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(S) No. 664 of 2024 (High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi) — Teacher recruitment, 2015 advertisement — Intermediate Trained Teachers, Classes 1 to 5 / 6 to 8, Para and Non-Para categories — Twelve petitioners who had applied in 2015 prayed for a direction that they be allowed to participate in the district-wise counselling for remaining vacancies, alleging that candidates with lesser marks had been called and allowed to participate in the counselling. Learned counsel sought disposal in terms of the Court's earlier order dated 16.02.2022 in W.P.(S) No. 2378 of 2019 (Paras Nath Mandal v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), which had directed counselling by way of last opportunity with notice by press communique, and of the Division Bench order dated 15.09.2023 in L.P.A No. 203 of 2022 (The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Paras Nath Mandela batch), wherein the appellate bench had held the Single Judge's order required no interference and re-stated the directions with timelines, expressly declaring that no further counselling shall be held for the 2015 advertisement and that the directions shall not be taken as precedent. Court noted that the press communique had not yet been issued by the Deputy Directors/Deputy Commissioners per State counsel's submission, and by order dated 16.10.2023 in W.P.(S) No. 1233 of 2022 and four other cases instruction on issuance of notices had earlier been sought. Holding: respondent authorities directed to first verify factual similarity of the present case with the said batch and L.P.As, and if found similar, to extend the same benefit to these petitioners while following the Division Bench directions dated 15.09.2023; writ petition allowed. No statute cited in the judgment text.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 664 of 2024

Sarita Saw 2. Ananda Man Swarnakar 3. Kishore Kumar Mahato 4. Kedar Nath Mahto 5. Kamal Kumar Mahto 6. Subhash Chandra Thakur 7. Shiv Shankar Yadav 8. Mala Kumari 9. Sunil Kumar 10. Ashok Kumar 11. Bijay Shankar Barnwal 12. Avinash Kumar …. Petitioner Versus

The State of Jharkhand.

The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Rajbhasha and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. 7. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad.

The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara. 9. The District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara.

The Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj. 11. The District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj. 12. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro. 13. The District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro. 14. The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur. 15. The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur. 16. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka. 17. The District Superintendent of Education, Dumka. 18. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih. 19. The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih. 20. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar. 21. The District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar. 22. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma. 23. The District Superintendent of Education, Koderma. 24. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra. 25. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra. 26. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda. 27. The District Superintendent of Education, Godda. 28. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh. 29. The District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh. 30. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. 31. The District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh. 32. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.

2

The District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi.

The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum.

The District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum.

The Deputy Commissioner, Saraikella-Kharsawan.

The District Superintendent of Education, Sarikella-Kharsawan.

The Deputy Commissioner, Khunti.

The District Superintendent of Education, Khunti.

The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla.

The District Superintendent of Education, Gumla.

The Deputy Commissioner, Gharwa.

The District Superintendent of Education, Gharwa.

The Deputy Commissioner, Simdega.

The District Superintendent of Education, Simdega.

The Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga.

The District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga.

…. Respondents

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

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Bhushan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashuthosh Anand No.2, AC to GP-IV

3/ 06.03.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to allow them to participate in the counselling process in the respective districts for which they have applied for consideration of their candidatures under Para and Non-Para categories for remaining vacancies of Intermediate Trained Teachers for Classes 1 to 5 / 6 to 8 and if the petitioners are found eligible, they may be suitably appointed as they have already applied against the vacancies in different districts in the year 2015 and the candidates having lesser marks than the petitioners have been called and allowed to participate in the counselling.

At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 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:

“ 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

3

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.

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

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.”

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, in following manners:-

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

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.

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.

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

4

the Notice Board of the Office of concerned District Superintendent of Education.

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.

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.

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.

Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners also in the said counselling since they have secured higher marks than the candidates who have been called for counselling.

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.

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.

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)

5

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 petitioners 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.

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

R.Kr.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Exclusion of the petitioners from the counselling process for remaining vacancies of Intermediate Trained Teachers (Para and Non-Para categories) under the 2015 recruitment, despite their having applied in 2015 and secured more marks than the last selected candidates who were called and allowed to participate; counselling per the Division Bench order dated 15.09.2023 had not started.¶35
Respondent authorities (State of Jharkhand; Deputy Commissioners / District Superintendents of Education)
Prior proceeding
Similar issue previously decided by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2378 of 2019 (Paras Nath Mandal v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. and other analogous cases), order dated 16.02.2022.¶36
Prior proceeding
In that order the Single Judge directed initiation of counselling by way of last opportunity for petitioners who obtained more marks than the last selected candidates, notice through press communique/local newspaper and notice boards, completion within prescribed periods (four months overall), and expressly stated that no further counselling shall be held for the 2015 advertisement and that the directions shall not be taken as precedent.¶41
Prior proceeding
The State of Jharkhand challenged the said order in L.P.A No. 203 of 2022 (The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Paras Nath Mandal and other analogous cases); the Division Bench held that the Single Judge's order needed no interference and was required to be complied with at the earliest, directing counselling forthwith by way of last opportunity, approach to Deputy Commissioners within four weeks, notice by press communique and notice board, completion of counselling within a further eight weeks subject to eligibility and higher marks than last selected candidates, strict adherence to relevant rules/regulations within four months, and no further counselling thereafter (directions expressly not to be taken as precedent).¶43
Prior proceeding
Petitioners' counsel sought disposal of the present writ petition in terms of the order dated 16.02.2022 (W.P.(S) No. 2378 of 2019 batch) as well as the Division Bench order dated 15.09.2023 in L.P.A No. 203 of 2022, submitting that the counselling contemplated thereby had not yet started.¶52
Prior proceeding
By order dated 16.10.2023 in W.P.(S) No. 1233 of 2022 and four other cases, respondent-State counsel in the respective cases had been directed to seek instructions as to whether the Deputy Commissioners of concerned districts had issued notices to the concerned para teachers by way of press communique in terms of the Division Bench order dated 15.09.2023.¶53
Prior proceeding
On the hearing date, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that, as per instructions, the press communique had not yet been issued by the Deputy Commissioners of the concerned districts.¶54