Display PDF

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022
------
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Project
Bhawan, PO Dhurwa, PS Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
3.The Director, Primary Education (Directorate of
Education), School Education & Literacy
Department,Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO
Dhurwa, PS Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4.The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman District
Establishment Committee, Chatra, P.O., P.S. & District
Chatra, Jharkhand.
5.The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra, P.O.,
P.S. & District Chatra, Jharkhand.
6.The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman District
Establishment Committee, Koderma, P.O., P.S. & District
Koderma, Jharkhand.
7.The District Superintendent of Education, Koderma, P.O.,
P.S. & District Koderma, Jharkhand.
… Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Paras Nath Mandal son of Mahangi Mandal, resident of
village Bhandaro, P.O. & P.S. Margomunda via Madhupur,
District-Deoghar, Jharkhand
… Petitioner/Respondent
WITH
L.P.A. No. 431 of 2022
------
1.The State of Jharkhand

2
2.The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Rajbhasha and

Administrative Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal
House, PO & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
3.The Director, Primary Education (Directorate of
Education), Department of Personnel, Rajbhashaand
Administrative Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, MDI
Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
4.The Deputy Commissioner- cum- Chairman District
Establishment Committee, Bokaro, P.O., P.S. & District
Bokaro, Jharkhand.
5.The District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro, P.O.,
P.S. & District Bokaro, Jharkhand.
… Appellants
Versus
Digamber Prasad Yadav, son of Late DayalMahto, Resident
of Taraytand, P.O. Badiyabad, P.S. Bagabad, District
Giridih, Jharkhand.
… Respondent
WITH
L.P.A. No. 482 of 2022
------
1. The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary,
Human Resources Development Department, Government
of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O.&P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Directorate of Primary Education, Human
Resources Development Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O.&P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District
Education Establishment Committee, Sahebganj, P.O. and
P.S. Sahebganj, District Sahebganj.
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj,
P.O. and P.S. Sahebganj, District Sahebganj.
5. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District
Education Establishment Committee, Pakur, P.O.& P.S.
3
Pakur, District Pakur, State Jharkhand.

6. The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur,
P.O.&P.S. Pakur, District Pakur, State Jharkhand.
Education Establishment Committee, Deoghar, P.O.&P.S.
Deoghar, District Deoghar, State Jharkhand.
8. The District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar,
P.O.&P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar, State Jharkhand.
Education Establishment Committee, Godda, P.O.& P.S.
Godda, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
10. The District Superintendent of Education, Godda,
P.O.& P.S. Godda, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
Education Establishment Committee, Dumka, P.O. & P.S.
Dumka, District Dumka, State Jharkhand.
12. The District Superintendent of Education, Dumka,
P.O.& P.S. Dumka, District Dumka, State Jharkhand.
Education Establishment Committee, Jamtara, P.O. & P.S.
Jamtara, District Jamtara, State Jharkhand
14. The District Superintendent of Education,
Jamtara, P.O.& P.S. Jamtara, District Jamtara, State
Jharkhand.
Education Establishment Committee, Chatra, P.O. & P.S.
Chatra, District Chatra, State Jharkhand.
16. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra,
P.O.& P.S. Chatra, District Chatra, State Jharkhand.
Education Establishment Committee, Dhanbad, P.O. &
P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand
Dhanbad, P.O.& P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, State
4
Jharkhand.
Education Establishment Committee, Giridih, P.O. & P.S.
Giridih, District Giridih, State Jharkhand
20. The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih,
P.O.& P.S. Giridih, District Giridih, State Jharkhand.
Education Establishment Committee, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.
Bokaro, District Bokaro, State Jharkhand
22. The District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro,
P.O.& P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro, State Jharkhand.
Education Establishment Committee, Ramgarh, P.O. &
P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh, State Jharkhand
Ramgarh, P.O.& P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh, State
Jharkhand.
Education Establishment Committee, Koderma, P.O. &
P.S. Koderma, District Koderma, State Jharkhand
Koderma, P.O.& P.S. Koderma, District Koderma, State
Jharkhand.
Education Establishment Committee, Hazaribagh, P.O. &
P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, State Jharkhand
Hazaribagh, P.O.& P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh,
State Jharkhand
…. Appellants/ Respondents
Versus
1. Sharwan Kumar Mahato, aged about 35 years, Son of
Madhusudan Mahato, Resident of Bara Nawatnad, P.O.
Govindpur, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State
5
Jharkhand.
2. Vikash Chandra Mandal, aged about 43 years, son of
Dharani Dhar Mandal, Resident of Nero, P.O. Bagsuma,
P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
3. Sanjeet Kumar Gorain, aged about 32 years, son of
Biswanath District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand, Gorain,
Resident of Pratapdih, P.O. Poddardih, P.S. Nirsa, District
Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
4. Hafizuddin Ansari, aged about 43 years, son of Late
Jahir Ansari, resident of Daldali, P.O. Daldali, P.S. Nirsa
Via Mugma, District Dhanbad State Jharkhand.
5. Md. Naushab Ahamad, aged about 38 years, son of Md.
Salim, resident of Gaidehra, P.O. Govindpur, P.S.
Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
6. Ayen Bhandari, aged about 38 years, son Durga Charan
Bhandari, Resident of Dhowatand, P.O. Dhorioinohuwani,
P.S Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
7. Ajij Ansari, aged about 39 years, son of Late Hafijuddin
Ansari, resident of Barwa East, P.O.Barwa East,
P.S.Govindpur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand.
8. Kanchan Mandal, aged about 40 years, son of Late Sri
Prabodh Chandra Mandal, resident of Kapasara, P.O.
Govindpur, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanabd, State
Jharkhand.
9. Ramesh Bahandari, aged about 38 years, son of Anil
Bhandari, resident of Mahubani, P.O.Ambona, P.S.
Govindpur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand.
10. Mihir Kumar Das, aged about 54 years, son of Late
Santosh Kumar Das, Resident of Kumhardih, P.O.
Jharkhand.
11. Bijay Kumar Mahato, aged about 36 years, son of
Hare Lal Mahato, Resident of Bara Nawa Tand, P.O. & P.S.
6
12. Sadhan Chandra Mandal, aged about at 87 years,

son of Anadi Charan Mandal, resident of Titichapuri,
P.O.Dhariomahubani, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad,
State Jharkhand.
13. Ranjeet Kumar Gope, aged about 43 years, son of
Shanti Ram Gope, resident of Murgabani, P.O. Jangalpur,
P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkahnd.
14. Sapan Kumar Mandal, aged about 41 years, son of
Desh Nath Mandal, resident of Sugna, P.O. Sarkardih,
P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand.
15. Tapas Kumar Mandal, aged about 36 years, son of
Kansari Charan Mandal, Resident of Bara Baghmara,
P.O.Bagsuma, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanabd, State
Jharkhand.
16. Rajkishor Prasad Mahato, aged about 53 years,
son of Late Ram Prasad Mahato, resident of Bara
Baghmara, P.O. Bagsuma, P.S. Govindpur, District
Dhanabd, State Jharkhand.
17. Md. Shahid Jamal, aged about 36 years, son of
Late Abdul Mannan, resident of Nishat Nagar,
P.O.Wasseypur, P.S. Bankmore, District Dhanabd, State
Jharkhand.
18. Samir Kumar Dan, aged about 57 years, son of
Late Pashupati Dan, resident of Maira Nawatand, P.O.
Maira Nawatand, P.S. Purvi Tundi, District Dhanabd,
State Jharkahnd.
19. Rajeev Kumar Das, aged about 36 years, son of
Himanshu Sekhar Das, resident of Govindpur, P.O.
Govindpur, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State
Jhakrhand.
20. Somit Kumar Dutta, aged about 37 years, son of
Narugopal Dutta, resident of Govindpur (Ramnagar), P.O.
Jharkhand.
7
21. Bhuban Rajak, aged about 46 years, son of Late

Ganpat Rajak, resident of Rampur, P.O. Maharajgan, P.S.
Purvi Tand, District Dhanbad, State Jharkahnd.
22. Shuku Gope, aged 37 years, son of Gora Chanda
Gope, resident of Kaladabar, P.O. Bardohi, P.S.
Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
23. Tahir Ahmad, aged about 38 years, son of Md.
Kalimuddin Ansari, resident of Kaladabar, P.O.Barwa
East, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
24. Md. Basher Ansari, aged about 37 years, son of
Md. Shahid Ansari, resident of Parasi, P.O. Barwa East,
25. Ram Dayal Mahato, aged about 43 years son of
Late Badri Mahato resident of Karmagora, P.O. Kalyanpur,
P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
26. Arindam Mondal, aged about 48 years, son of
Amiya Kumar Mondal, resident of Keliasole, P.O. Keliasole,
P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand.
27. Sujit Kumar Thakur, aged about 39 years, son of
Maheshwar Thakur, resident of B.E. & F.W. Sindri Colony,
Nirsa, P.O. Nirsa, P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanabd, State
Jharkhand.
28. Saroj Kumar Mondal, aged about 38 years, son of
Swapan Kumar Mondal, resident of Dhobari,
P.O.Keliasole, P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanabd, State
Jharkhand.
29. Manoj Kumar Mahato, aged about 42 years, son of
Puran Chand Mahato, resident of Dam Kara Barwa,
P.O.Nagnagar, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanabd, State
Jharkhand.
30. Sachindra Nath Mandal, aged about 39 years, son
of Kishto Prasad Mandal, residen tof Barwadda,
P.O.Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanabd, State
Jharkhand.
8
31. Sachida Nand Das, aged about 45 years, son of

Kishun Lal Rohi Das, resident of Baman Bad, P.O. Latani,
P.S. Purvi Tundi, District DFhanbad, State Jharkhand.
32. Pradeep Kumar Mandal, aged about 40 years, son
of Biren Chandra Mandal, resident of Dhorio Mahubani,
P.O. Mahubani, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanband, State
Jharkhand.
33. Krishna Kumar Mandal, aged about 48 years, son
of Late Nagendra Nath Mandal, resident of Hirapur, P.O.
Maharajganj, P.S.Tundi, District Dhanbad, State
Jharkhand.
34. Hira Lal Mahato, aged about 41 yars, son of
Panchanan Mahato, resident of Barmasia, P.O. Birajpur,
P.S. Barwadda, District Chanbad, State Jharkhand.
35. Gopal Chandra Barat, aged about 46 years, son of
Late Budhan Chandra Barat, resident of Barajamua,
P.O.Kalyanpur, P.S.Barwadda, District Dhanbad, State
Jharkahnd.
36. Bhekh Lal Mahato, aged about 40 years, son of
Late Durga Prasad Mahato, resident of Udaypur,
P.O.Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanabd, State
Jharkhand.
37. Dashrath Mahto, aged about 49 years, son of
Khakhandu Mahato, resident of Udaypur, P.O. Kalyanpur,
P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand.
38. Bishwanath Mahato, aged about 37 years, son of
Ghanshayam Mahato, resident of Kubritand,
P.O.Nagarkiyari, P.S. Govindpur, Disrtrict Dhanbad, State
Jharkhand.
39. Abodh Kumar Mandal, aged about 40 years, son of
Late Nivaran Chandra Mandal, resident of Nagarkiyari,
P.O. Nagarkiyari, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanabd, State
Jharkhand.
40. Jay Prakash Saw, aged about 45 ytears, son of
9
Tammi Prassad Mahato, residen tof Kalyanpur, P.O.

Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanabd, State
Jharkhand.
41. Md. Rafique Ansari, aged about 51 years, son of
Ramjan Mia, resident of Baranawatand P.O. Govindpur,
P.S. Govindpur, Districtr Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
42. Md. Mukhtar Ansari, aged about 39 years, son of
Abdul Mannan Resident of Dumdumi, P.O. Barwa East,
43. Raise Azam, aged about 47 years, son of Md.
Rayam Husain, resideent of Kalyanpur, P.O.Kalyanpur,
P.S. Rajganj, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand.
44. Dalu Ram Saw, aged about 34 years, son of Late
Anand Mahato, resident of Karmagora, P.O. Kalyanpur,
45. Ramtosh Kumar, aged about 35 years, son of
Churamn Mahato, resident of Hariyadih, P.O. Kalyanpur,
46. Md. Mukhtar Hussain, aged about 47 years, son of
Md. Paniruddin Ansari, resident of Kalyanpur, P.O.
Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanbad, State
Jharkhand.
47. Naresh Rawani, aged about 43 years, son of Late
Ravi Rawani, Resident of Jainagar, P.O. Murradih, P.S.
Barwadda, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand.
48. Md. Imtiyaz Ansari, aged about 49 years, son of
Md. Habibuddin Ansari, resident of Simlatand, P.O.
Murradih, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanbad, State
Jharkhand.
49. Saroj Kumar Mahto, aged about 55 years, son of
Milu Mahto, resident of Udaypur, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S.
50. Jiten Chandra Gorai, aged about 36 years, son of
Sudhir Chandra Gorai, resident of Deoli, P.O. Jangalpur,
10
P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.

51. Manoj Gope, aged about 37 years, aged about Late
Dukhu Gope, resident of Deoli, P.O. Jangalpur, P.S.
Govindpur, Distirct Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
52. Md. Shahabuddin Ansari, aged about 49 years,
son of Md. Khalil Ansari, resident of Mahubani, P.O.
Dhorio Mahubani, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad,
State Jharkhand.
53. Md. Jarjis Ansari, aged about 52 years, son of Md.
Yunus Ansari, resident of Bhitia, P.O. Bhitia, P.S.
54. Subhash Kumar Chatterjee, aged about 44 years,
son of Bijay Chatterjee, resident of Rangdih, P.O.Bhitia,
P.S Govindpur, Distirct Dhabbad, State Jharkahnd.
55. Anwar Alam, aged about 43 years, son of Ismail
Ansari, resident of Gorangdih, P.O.& P_.S. Govindpur,
District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
56. Sarju Prasad Dutta, aged about 34 years, son of
Late Prabhat Kumar Dutta, resident of Govindpur,
P.O.&P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
57. Samiruddin Ansari, aged about 48 years, son of
Md. Noshad Ansari, resident of Dumdumi, P.O. Barwa
East, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
58. Golak Bauri, aged about 45 years, son of Shashi
Bauri, resident of Beltand, P.O. Kharni, P.S. Barwadda,
59. Shankar Rajwar, aged about 41 years, son of
Basudeo Rajwar, resident of Pawapur, P.O. Kharni, P.S.
60. Bijay Nandan Pandey, aged about 51 years, son fo
Chandradeo Pandey, resident of Khanudih, P.O.Khanudih,
P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
61. Rajendra Yadav, aged about 46 years, son of
Ramkisun Yadav, resident of Baghmara, P.O. Nawagarh,
11
P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand.

62. Manoj Kumar Gope, aged about 41 ytears, son of
Jaglal Gope, resident of Nadkhurakee, P.O. Nadkhurakee,
P.S.Baghmara, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand.
63. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, aged about 40 years, son
of Sri Shyamesh Ch. Pandey, resident of Jhargrahi,
P.O.Jhargrahi, P.S. Barora, District Dhanbad, State
Jharkhand.
64. Avijit Dubey, aged about 51 years, son of Binjay
Kumar Dube, resident of Muraidih Colony, P.O. Pochaki,
P.S. Barira, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
65. Bhubneshwar Prasad, aged about 48 years, son of
Bahadur Prasad, resident of Baghmara Basti,
P.O.Baghmara Bazaar, P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanbad,
State Jharkhand.
66. Bidesh Kumar Sahani, aged about 39 years, son of
Nirmal Sahani, residen tof Bhagabandh, P.O. Barabindia,
P.S. Nirsha, District Dhanabd, Stae Jharkhand.
67. Man Puran Pandey, aged about 44 years, son of
Fanindar Nath Pandey, resident of Barapandeydih,
Khanudih, P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanbad, State
Jharkhand.
68. Dhirendra Chandra Napit, aged about 44 years,
son of Thakur Napit, resident of Dagdho, P.O. Khanudih,
69. Satyendra Vishwakarma, aged about 48 years, son
of Tribhuwan Vishwakarma, resident of Sinidih, P.O.
Tundoo, P.S. Madhuban District Dhanbad, State
Jharkhand.
70. Manpuran Mahato, aged about 43 years, son of
Late Manohar Mahato, resident of Sridharpur,
P.O.Kankomath, P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad, State
Jharkhand.
71. Amit Kumar, aged about 35 years, son of Vir
12
Chandra Patel, resident of Muraidih Colony, P.O. Pochari

(Nawagarh), P.S. Barora, District Dhanbad, State
Jharkhand.
72. Ayan Kumar Rawani, aged about 48 years, son of
Dilip Rawani, resident of Dharmabandh Basti, P.O.
Malkera, P.S. Madhuban District Dhanbad, Stae
Jharkhand.
73. Arun Kumar Rawani, aged about 33 years son of
Ramnath Rawani, resident of Dharmabandh Basti, P.O.
Malkera, P.S. Madhuban, District Dhanbad, State
Jharkhand.
74. Ramwatar Rawani, aged about 46 years, son of
Late Bishwanath Rawani, resident of Dharmabandh,
P.O.Malkera, P.S. Madhuban, District Dhanbad, State
Jharkhand.
75. Bindeshwar Prasad Das, aged about 46 years, son
of Jawahir Das, resident of Nichitpur, P.O.Khario, P.S.
Barora, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
76. Raj Kishore Mandal, aged about 35 years, son of
Jhari Ram Mandal, resident of Tilaiya, P.O. Khanudih,
77. Manoj Kumar Mahto, aged about 38 years, son of
Nunulal Mahto, resident of Tilaiya, P.O. Khanudih, P.S.
Baghmara, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
78. Shankar Mistri, aged about 42 years, son of Nokal
Mistri, resident of Aamdih, P.O. Khario, P.S. Barora,
79. Abdul Sattar Ansari, aged about 47 years, son of
Abdul Jabbar Ansari, resident of Pochari, P.O. Pochari,
P.S. Barora, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
80. Jai Lal Mahto, aged about 39 years, son of Sona
Ram Mahto, resident of Muraidih, P.O. Pochari, P.S.
Barora, District Dhanbad, State Jharkahnd.
81. Ram Prasad Mahato, aged about 49 years, son of
13
Bhola Mahato, resident of Jhagrahi, P.O. Jhagrahi, P.S.

Barora, District Dhabad, State Jharkhand.
82. Sajid Shekh, aged about 34 years, son of Noor
Mohamad Shekh, resident of Kandra, P.O. Ramnagargarh,
P.S. Mahuda, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
83. Lalit Kumar Mahato, aged about 38 years, son of
Dhananjay Mahato, resident of Pathargariya, Dhowatand,
P.O. Bhatdih, P.S. Mahuda, District Dhanbad, State
Jharkhand.
84. Yogesh Dutta, aged about 34 years, son 0f Monilal
Dutta, resident of Egarkund South Kusumkanali, P.O.
Kumardhubi, P.S. Chirkunda, District Dhanbad, State
Jharkhand.
85. Patit Paban Roychaudhary, aged about 42 years,
son of Gopal Chandra, Roychaudhary, resident of Tiltoria,
P.O. Madanpur, P.S. Nirsha, District Dhanbad, State
Jharkhand.
86. Md. Sikandar Husein Shah, aged about 34 years,
son of Late Eashmail Sai, resident of Niche Deoghara, P.O.
Mahuda, P.S. Madhuban, District Dhanabd, State
Jharkahnd.
87. Budhan Mahto, aged about 41 years, son of
Mangtu Mahto, resident of Narangi, P.O. Naitand, P.S.
Dumri, District Giridih, State Jharkhand.
88. Sukhdeo Mahto, aged about 54 years, son of Sri
Utim Mahto, resident of Naitand, via Suria, P.O. Naitand,
P.S. Dumri, District Giridih, State Jharkhand.
89. Rajesh Kumar, aged about 33 years, son of Ganesh
Prasad Kushwaha, resident of Bhandaro, P.O. Naitand, via
Suria,P.S. Dumri, District Giridih, State Jharkhand.
90. Vikash Kumar Verma, aged about 36 years, son of
Sri Shanichar Mahto, resident of Naitand, P.O. Naitand,
91. Chetlal Mahto, aged about 52 years, son of Late
14
Sukar Mahto, resident of Angarpathra Pathalkothi, P.S.

Katras, District Dhanbad, State Jharkahnd.
92. Girdhari Prasad Kushwaha, aged about 44 years,
son of Hulash Mahto, resident of Puranadih, P.O. Naitand,
93. Shekh Abdul Kallu, aged about 35 years, son of
Shekh Noor Alam, resident of Kharkhari, P.O. Kharkhari,
P.S. Madhuban, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
94. Balram Mahato, aged about 44 years, son of
Sitaram Mahato, resident of Pradhankhanta, P.O.
Pradhankhanta, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State
Jharkhand.
95. Siddheshwar Singh, agerd about 42 years, son of
Late Dashrath Singh, resident of Amtal, P.Q. Amtal,
Baliapur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand.
96. Praesh Chandra Kumbhakar, aged about 47 years,
son of Hiralal Kumhakar, resident of Kerabir,
P.O.Baliapur, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State
Jharkhand.
97. Shankar Chandra Mahto, aged about 45 years, son
of Late Harkhu Mahto, resident of Jagdish, P.O.
Pradhankhanta, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State
Jharkahnd.
98. Om Prakash Das, aged about 43 years, son of Late
Jaleshwar Das, resident of Amjhar, P.O.& P.S. Baliapur,
99. Nepal Chandra Mahto, aged about 39 years, son of
Srishti Dhar Mahto, resident of Dhokhra, P.O.
Damoderpur, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State
Jharkhand.
100. Manoj Kumar Rawani, aged about 37 years, son of
Vishwanath Rawani, resident of Karmatand, P.O.
Karmatand, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanabd, State
Jharkhand.
15
101. Suresh Rawani, aged about 38 years, son of

Mahabir Rawani, resident of Karmatand, P.O. Karmatand,
P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand.
102. Sadhan Kumar, Gorain, aged about 40 years, son
of Kali Pada Gorain, resident of Karmatand, P.O.
Karmatand, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanabd, State
Jharkhand.
103. Kala Chand Rawani, aged about 41 years, son of
Sohan Rawani, resident of Karmatand, P.O. Krymatand,
P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State JHarkhand.
104. Mahendra Kumar Mahto, aged about 35 years, son
of Rameshwar Mahato, resident of Kusumatand, P.O.
Pargha, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanabd, state Jharkhand.
105. Binod Kumar Rewani, aged about 56 years, son of
Hari Pad Rawani, resident of village Pargha Suphaldih,
P.O. Pargha, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanabd, State
Jharkhand.
106. Bijay Kumar Mahato, aged about 43 years, son of
Sachidanand Mahato, residenht of Bara Baghmara, P.O.
Bagsuma, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanabd, State
Jharkahnd.
107. Bachan Rawani, aged about 34 years, son of Navin
Rawani resident of Pargha Suphald, P.O. Pargha, P.S.
108. Subal Chandra Mahato, aged about 45 years, son
of Juran Mahato, resident of Kusmatand, P.O. Pargha,
P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
109. Jayprakash Mahasto, aged about 33 years, son of
Gokhul Mahato, resident of Nipania (Kuludih), P.O.
Pargha, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State
Jhakrhand.
110. Raj Kishor Mahato, aged about 47 years, son of
Jogeshwar Mahato, resident of Laldih, P.S. Baliapur,
16
111. Santosh Bauri, aged about 48 years, son of Lakhi

Ram Bauri, resident of Moko, P.O. Moko, P.S./ Baliapur,
112. Rajkesh Kumar Mahato, aged about 34 years, son
of Gopal Mahato, resident of Dhokhra, P.O. Damodarpur,
113. Ganesh Chandra Mahato, aged about 40 years,
son of Jaleshwar Mahato, resident of Pradhankahanta,
P.O.Pradhankahnata, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad,
State Jharkhand.
114. Tulsi Das Mahato, aged about 41 years, son of
Jaleshwar Mahato, resident of Pradhankahanta, P.O.
Pradhankahanta, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanabd, State
Jharkhand.
115. Haru Rawani, aged about 46 years, son of Shyam
Rawani, resident of Kusmatand, P.O. Pargha, P.S.
Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
116. Dilip Kumar Mandal, aged about 45 years, son of
Kamlakar Mandal, resident of Pargha Koradih, P.O.
Pargha, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State Jhakhand.
117. Ranjit Kumar Mahato, aged about 37 years, son of
Dashrath Mahato, resident of Chandkuiya, P.O. Amtal via
Jharia, P.S. Tisra, District Dhanbad, State Jharkahnd.
118. Surendra Nath Mahato, aged about 40 years, son
of Fitu Mahato, resident of Pradhankahanta, P.O.
Pradhankahanta, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanabd, State
Jharkhand.
119. Inderajeet Mahato, aged about 34 years, son of
Kala Chand Mahato, resident of Chand Kuiya, P.O. Amtal,
P.S. Tisra, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
120. Tapan Kumar Mahato, aged about 33 years, son of
Kisto Pado Mahato, resident of Kalipur, P.O. Gharbar, P.S.
121. Bhagirath Mahato, aged about 32 years, son of
17
Kinu Mahato, resident of Banderchua, P.O. Pargha, P.S.

122. Mathur Rabi Das, aged about 38 years, son of
Arjun Rabi Das, resident of Baliapur, P.O.&P.S. Baliapur,
District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand.
123. Anuj Kumar Mahato, aged about 34 years, son of
Lakhi Ram Mahato, resident of Sapta, P.O.
Pradhankahnata, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State
Jharkhand.
124. Kailash Gorai, aged about 42 years, son of Nand
Lal Gorai, resident of Parasbania, P.O. Khas Jienagora,
125. Amal Paramanik, aged about 46 years, son of
Ratan Pramanik, resident of Amjhar, P.O.&P.S. Baliapur,
126. Dhirendra Paramanik, aged about 43 years, son of
Budhu Pramanik, resident of Palani, P.O. Palani, P.S.
127. Arun Kumar Gope, aged about 40 years, son of
Santosh Kumar Gope, resident of Fakiradih, P.O. Palani,
128. Beni Madhab Paul, aged about 40 yeaars, son of
Late Atul Chandra Paul, resident of Mandhartand,
P.O.&P.S. Sindri, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand.
129. Digambar Mahato, aged about 49 years, son of
Mutuk Lal Mahato, resident of Baliapur, P.O. P.S.
130. Naresh Kumar Mahato, aged about 45 years, son
of Gopal Chandra Mahato, resident of Bormuri, P.O. &
131. Kailash Pati Mahato, aged about 57 years, son of
Late Jagannath Mahato, resident of Dhangi, P.O.
Pradhankahanta, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State
Jharkhand..
18
132. Sudip Kumar Mandal, aged about 40 years, son of

Lambodar Mandal, resident of Dhangi, P.O.
Pradhankahanta, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad, State
Jharkhand.,
133. Hira Lal Mahato, aged about 39 years, son of
Kartik Mahato, resident of Jagdish, P.O. Pradhankahanta,
134. Sridhar Mahato, aged about 52 years, son of Binod
Mahato, resident of Gortopa, P.O. Gortopa, P.S Govindpur,
135. Lakhan Kumar Pandey, aged about 53 years, son
of Dhirendra Nath Pandey, resident of Khanudih,
P.O.Khanudih, P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanbad, State
Jharkhand.
.…. Respondents/writ petitioners
With
L.P.A. No. 593 of 2022
------
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, P.O.& P.S. Bokaro,
District Bokaro.
3. The District Education Officer, Bokaro, P.O.& Bokaro,
District Bokaro.
P.O.& P.S. Bokaro, Distirct Bokaro.
5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro,
P.O.&P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro.
-------- Appellants/Respondents
Versus
Neel Kamal Verma son of Nehaliram Mahto, resident of
Viullage Baraikala, P.O. Chandipur, P.S. Kasamar, District
Bokaro, Jharkhand.
------ Writ Petitioner/ Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 610 of 2022
------
19
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary,

Department of Personnel, Rajbhasa and Administrative
Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. &
P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand.
2. The Director, Primary Education, School of Education
and Literacy Development Departmnet, Government of
Jharkhand, MDI Building, P.O.&P.S.Dhurwa, District
Ranchi, State Jharkhand.
Establishment Committee, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & District
Deoghar.
P.O., P.S. and District Deoghar.
------------ Appellants/Respondents
Versus
1. Umesh Choudhary, aged about 42 years, son of Sri
Jatan Choudhary, resident of Gram and Post Master
Mohalla Jori, P.S. Master Mohalla, Jori, P.S. Basist Nagar,
District Chatra, State Jharkhand.
-------- Respondent/Writ Petitioner
With
L.P.A. No. 611 of 2022
------
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary,
Human Resource Development, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District
Resource Development, Government of Jharkhand, Project
Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, State
Jharkhand.
3. The Deputy Commssioner cum Chairman, District
Education Establishment Committee, Pakur, P.O., P.S.
and District Pakur, State Jharkhand.
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur, P.O.,
20
P.S. and District Pakur, State Jharkhand.

Education Establishment Committee, Giridih, P.O., P.S.
and District Giridih, State Jharkhand.
6. The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih, P.O.,
P.S. and District Giridih.
Education Establishment Committee, Deoghar, P.O., P.S.
and District Deoghar, State Jharkhand.
P.O., P.S. and District Deoghar.
------------- Appellants/Respondents
Versus
1. Kumar Amit, aged about 40 years, son of Sri Sudhir
Kumar Jha, resident of Radhika Lodge, Nand Sulochana
Sadan, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar, State
Jharkahnd.
2. Dilip Kumar Raut, aged about 39 years son of Sri
Heeralal Raut, resident of Village Behrakanari, P.O. & P.S.
Sarwan, District Deoghar, State Jharkhand.
3. Gautam Raj, aged about 36 years, son of Late Nawal
Kishor Pandit, resident of Rani Kothi, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar,
District Deoghar, State Jharkahnd.
------------- Respondents/Writ Petitioners
With
L.P.A. No. 613 of 2022
------
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District
2. The Director of Primary Education, Human Resource
Development, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building,
P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Ranchi,
21
P.O.&P.S. Ranchi, District Ranchi.

4. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh,
P.O, P.S. & District Hazaribagh
5. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Bokaro,
P.O.&P.S. & District Bokaro.
6. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Giridih,
P.O.&P.S & District Giridih
7. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Garwah,
P.O.&P.S. & District Garwah
8. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad,
P.O.&P.S. & District Dhanbad
9. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Chatra,
P.O.&P.S. & District Chatra.
10. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Godda,
P.O.&P.S. & District Godda.
11. The Deputy Superintendent of Education,
Sahebganj, P.O.&P.S. & District Sahebganj
12. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Pakur,
P.O.&P.S. & District Pakur.
Jamtara, P.O.&P.S. & District Jamtara.
Deoghar, P.O.& P.S. & District Deoghar.
Koderma, P.O.& P.S. & District Koderma
16. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Dumka,
P.O.&P.S. & District Dumka
Ramgarh, P.O.& P.S. & District Ramgarh.
18. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Gumla,
P.O.& P.S. & District Gumla.
Simdega, P.O. & P.S. & District Simdega.
22
Lohardaga, P.O.& P.S. & District Lohardaga.

21. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Latehar,
P.O.&P.S. & District Latehar.
Palamau, P.O.& P.S. & District Palamau.
Hazaribagh, P.O.& P.S. & District Hazaribagh.
24. The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Bokaro,
P.O.&P.S. & District Bokaro.
------------- Respondents/ Appellants
Versus
1. Ram Mohan Prasad Sah, aged about 44 years, son of
Jagnarayan Prasad Sah, resident of Delipathar, P.O.
Bhalsumar, P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh.
2. Kundan Kumar, aged about 42 years, S/o Late Ayodhya
Prasad Sah, R/o Ratanpur, P.O.Rajbandh, P.S. Dumka,
Dist. Dumka.
3. Gopal Krishan, aged about 44 years S/o Late
Muralidhar, R/o Village Nonihat, P.O.&P.S. Nonihat,
District Dumka
4. Chandra Prakash Das, aged about 48 years S/o Harihar
Das R/o Gandhinagar, P.O., P.S. and District Dumka.
5. Ajayendra Kumar Singh, aged about 56 years S/o
Kamta Prasad Singh, R/o P.O. Lakrapahari, P.S. Jama,
Dist. Dumka.
6. Madhu Mangal Nag, aged about 45 years, S/o Late Tara
Pad Nag, resident of Village Palasi, P.O. Bara Palasi, P.S.
Jama, District Dumka.
7. Kunal Upadhyay, aged about 42 years S/o Dhananjayu
Upadhyay, resident of New Babu Para, Dumka, P.O., P.S.
and District Dumka.
8. Rupesh Kumar, aged about 41 years S/o Ram Lakhan
Vishwakarma, resident of village Nagri Basti, P.O. Sijua,
P.S. Tetulmari, District Dhanbad.
23
9. Vikash Kmar, aged about 39 years S/o Surendra

Rawani, Resident of Basseriya Rawani Basti, Ward No. 13,
P.O. Kusumda, P.S. Kenduadih, Dist. Dhanbad.
10. Devendra Kumar, aged about 43 years S/o
Sahebram Rawani, Resident of Bhuli Basti, P.O.
Bhjulinagar, P.S. Bank More, Dist. Dhanbad.
11. Chandan Kumar, aged about 36 years S/o
Upendra Peasad Singh, Resident of Sangram Lorhia,
P.O.& P.S. Sangram Lorhia, Dist. Deoghar.
12. Satish Kumar Gupta, aged about 51 years S/o
Late Kasi Nath Shaw, Resident of Lata Bhawan, Near
H.E.School, Bhisti Para, Hirapur, P.O., P.S. & Distt.
Dhanbad.
13. Niranjan Prasad Singh, aged about 51 years S/o
Ishwarmani Singh, resident of Chhatabad, P.O.Katnia
Ghadih, P.S.Tundi, Dist. Dhanbad.
14. Manoj Kumar Roy, aged about 44 years S/o Late
Dharam Chandra Roy, resident of Kenduadih Rajput
Basti, P.O. Kusunda, P.S. Kenduadih, Dist. Dhanbad.
15. Laxman Mahto, aged about 45 years S/o Anup
Mahto, resident Kacchi Balihari, P.O. Kusunda, P.S. Putki,
Dist. Dhanbad.
16. Raju Kumar, aged about 49 years S/o Teklal
Sharma, Resident of Baludih, B.M./501 P.O. Moonidih,
P.S. Putki, Dist. Dhanbad.
17. Yogendra Prasad Bhagat, aged about 53 years S/o
Jagadish Prasasd Bhagat, resident of Dhoba, P.O.& P.S.
Ramgarh, Dist. Dumka.
18. Upendra Thakru, aged about 35 years S/o
Kamlanath Thakur, Resident of Sharma Tola, P.O.
Balsagra, P.S. Mundu, District Hazaribagh.
19. Vijay Kumar Rana, aged about 36 years S/o
Bhuneshwar Rana, resident of Medkuri Khurd, P.O.
Kariyatpur, P.S. Daru, Dist. Hazaribagh
24
20. Md. Safiq Ansari, aged about 47 years S/o Late

Samsul Haque, resident of Barki Pona, P.O.&P.S. Barki
Pona, Dist. Ramgarh.
21. Kunj Bihari, aged about 42 years S/o Chaman
Saw, resident of Kadma, P.O.&P.S. Kadma, Distt.
Hazaribagh.
22. Anil Kumar Lohra, aged about 44 years, son of
Shiv Ganga Ram Lohra, Resident of Bakudi, P.O.&P.S.
Bakudi, DIst. Sahebganj.
23. Md. Shahjahan, aged about 44 years, son of Abdul
Gafur, Resident okf Village Khaspura, P.O. Kathalbari,
P.S. Radha Nagar, Dist. Sahebganj.
24. Purendra Kumar, aged about 38 years, son of
Basudeo Ram, resident of Nagwa, P.O. Bariyath, P.S.
Sadar, Dist. Hazaribagh.
25. PRadip Prasad Kuswaha, aged about 38 years, son
of Ishwar Prasad Kuswaha, resident of Potma, P.O.
Sabalpur, P.S. Suriya, Dist. Giridih.
26. Reyaz Ansari, aged about 53 years, son of Rabul
Ansari, resident of Village Asurbandh, P.O. Pordag, P.S.
Nimayaghat, Dist. Giridih.
27. Ranjeet Rana, aged about 45 years, son of Bhikhi
Rana, resident of Babhandih, P.O. Chopnadih, P.S.
Markacho, Dist. Koderma.
28. Birendra Kumar Pandey, aged about 41 years, son
of Lal Dhari Pandey, resident of Sinduwari, P.O. Jori P.S.
Chatra, Distt. Chatra.
29. Rajesh Kumar Rana, aged about 34 years, son of
Rameshwar Rana, Resident of Rupaidih, P.O. Makatpur,
P.S. Jainagar, Dist. Koderma.
30. Murli Ram, aged about 51 years, son of Lekho Das,
Resident of Baddiha, P.O. Lokai, P.S. Koderma, Dist.
Koderma.
31. Chhotu Paswan, aged about 47 years, son of
25
Lakhan Paswan, resident of Giridih Road, Mahavir

Mohalla, P.O., P.S. & Distt. Koderma.
32. Umesh Paswan, aged about 45 years, son of
Babulal Paswan, resident of Barkan Gango, P.O. Barkan
Gango, P.S. Barkatha, Dist. Hazaribagh
33. Birendra Rajak, aged about 39 years, son of Prayag
Rajak, resident of Turkabad, P.O. Chuglamo, P.S.
Barkhatta, Dist. Hazaribagh.
34. Shashi Bhushan Singh, aged about 35 years, son
of Rama Dahin Singh, resident of Jori, P.O.&P.S. Jori,
Dist. Chatra.
35. Birendra Prasad, aged about 44 years, son of
Kunjo Mahto, resident of Village Bedam, P.O. Bedam,
P.S.Tatijharia, Dist. Hazaribagh.
36. Sudhir Kumar Mandal, aged about 40 years, son of
Tulsi Prasad, resident of Village Kolhu, P.O. Bedam, P.S.
Tatijharia, Dist. Hazaribagh.
37. Butan Kumar, aged about 47 years, son of Konjo
Mahto, resident of village Duymar, P.O. Bedam, P.S.
38. Mousam Kumar Singh, aged about 38 years, son of
Sudhir Kumar Singh, resident of Madhura, P.O. Madhura,
P.S. Balbadda, Dist. Godda.
39. Gautam Kumar, aged about 39 years, son of
Anugrah Narayan Singh, resident of P.O. & P.S.
Mahagama, Dist. Godda.
40. Yogendra Kumar Ray, aged about 42 years, son of
Ashok Kumar Ray, resident of Hussainabad, P.O.
Hussainabad, P.S. Devipur, Dist. Deoghar.
41. Pintu Ravidas, aged about 36 years, son of Jitan
Ram, Resident of Village Jharpo, P.O. Jharpo, P.S. Ichak,
Dist. Hazaribagh.
42. Chandan Thakur, aged about 36 years, son of
Mulchand Thakur, resident of Dumar, P.O. Bedam, P.S.
26

43. Tulsi Thakur, aged about 47 years, son of Late
Ganesh Thakur, resident of Dumar, P.O. Bedam, P.S.
44. Sanjay Kumar Bhagat, aged about 40 years, son of
Bhagoswar Prasad Bhagat, resident of Amrapara,
P.O.&P.S./ Amrapara, Dist. Pakur.
45. Rabindra Nath Bhagat, aged about 53 years, son of
Late Ramjanam Bhagat, resident of Dumarchir, P.O.
Dumarchir, P.S. Amrapara, Dist. Pakur.
46. Satyendra Prasad, aged about 43 years, son of
Shiv Prasad Bhagat, resident of Pakuria, P.O.&P.SD.
Pakuria, Dist. Pakur.
47. Binod Kumar Sah, aged about 50 years, son of
Gurudayal Prasad, resident of Devinagar, P.O. Devinagar,
P.S. Maheshpur, Dist. Pakur.
48. Devkant Thakur, aged about 50 years, son of
Sadanand Thakur, resident of Teliapokhar, P.O. Rolagram,
P.S. Maheshpur, Dist. Pakur.
49. Santosh Kumar, aged about 39 years, son of Amrit
Prajapati, resident of Village Dumar, P.O. Bedam, PO.S.
With
L.P.A. No. 626 of 2022
------
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, School Education and Literacy
Development Department, Government of Jharkahnd,
Project Building, P.O.&P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, State
Jharkhand.
3. The Director, Primary Education, School of Education
and Literacy Development Department, Government of
27
Jharkhand, MDI Building, P.O.&P.S.Dhurwa, District

4. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra, Block
Campus, P.O., P.S. and District Chatra.
5. The District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh,
P.O., P.S. and District Hazaribagh.
6. The District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh,
Office "B" Block, New Samaharnalaya Bhawan at
Chhatarmandu, P.O., P.S. and District Ramgarh.
Samaharnalaya Bhawan, Koderma, P.O., P.S. and District
Koderma.
8. The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih, Old
Jail Campus, Near Jhanda Maidan, P.O., P.S. and District
Giridih.
9. The District Superintendent of Education, Campus
Middle School, S.B.S., Chas, Bye Pass Road, P.O., P.S.
and District Bokaro.
10. The District Superintendent of Education, Misrit
Bhawan (Basement), Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. and District
Dhanbad.
Zila Parishad Bhawan, P.O., P.S. and District Dumka.
12. The District Superintendent of Education, Middle
School, Old Meena Bazar Campus, P.O., P.S. and District
Deoghar
Jamtara, Combined Building, Block-C, Sri Rampur, P.O.,
P.S. and District Jamtara.
14. The District Superintendent of Education, First
Floor of Information & Public Affair Building, in front of
Mela Maidan, P.O., P.S. and District Godda.
Sahibganj, Middle School (Police Line Campus), P.O., P.S.
28
Sahibganj and District Sahibganj.

Court Campus,, P.O., P.S. and District Pakur.
------------ Appellants
Versus
1. Jitendra Kumar Gupta aged about 35 years, son of Sri
Kali Sao, resident of Village & P.O. Mayapur, P.S.
Mayurhand, District Chatra, State Jharkhand.
2. Brahamdeo Yadav aged about 46 years son of Sri
Ramtilak Yadav, resident of village Kundri, P.O.
Mandhnaniya, P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra.
3. Binita Kumari aged about 37 years D/o Sri Kashi
Prasad Mehta, resident of Village Dhebadauri, P.O.
Mandhaniyan, P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra, State
Jharkhand.
4. Peamod Kumar Rana aged about 48 years son of Laste
Janki Rana, resident of village Dhebadauri, P.O.
Mandhaniyan, P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra State
Jharkhand.
5. Kailash Saw aged about 41 years son of Sri
Ramchandra Saw resident of village & P.O. Mayapur,
P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra, State Jharkhand.
6. Vikash Kumar Singh aged about 43 years S/o: Sri
Digambar Singh, resident of village Ambatari, P.O.
Pandani, P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra, State
Jharkhand.
7. Sanjay Kumar Rana aged about 47 years S/o Sri Mahan
Rana, resident of village & P.O. Manjhgawan, P.S.
Mayurhand, District Chatra.
8. Bishun Kumar Gupta aged about 42 years S/o Bhimal
Sao, resident of village Fulang, P.O. Pathra, P.S.
9. Jageshwar Prasad Sahu aged about 53 years S/o of Late
Thakuri Sahu, resident of village Jhardag, P.O. Pathra,
29

10. Amrit Kumar, aged about 44 years S/o Late
Mahabir Ram, Resident of village Sewal, P.O.
Mandhaniyan, P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra,
Jharjkhand.
11. Aditya Dangi aged about 41 years S/o Sri Cheto
Mahto, resident of village Bela, P.O. Mandhaniyan, P.S.
12. Rajdeo Kumar Ram, aged about 33 years, S/o Sri
Prasadi Bhuiyan, resident village Bela, P.O.
Mandhaniyan, P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra, State
Jharkhand.
13. Suryadeo Ram Rawani aged about 38 years S/o
Shri Bishun Ram, resident of village & P.O. Karni, P.S.
Itkhori, District Chatra, State Jharkhand.
14. Santosh Kumar, aged about 51 years S/o
Bhuneshwar Lal, Resident of village Erki, P.O. & P.S.
15. Ashok Sen Suman aged about 42 years son of Sri
Suresh Prasad Sahu, Resident of village Shaharjam,
P.O. Karni, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State
Jharkhand.
16. Pankaj Kumar Rajak, aged about 42 years, son of
Sri Horil Ram, resident of village Banthu, P.O. Parsouni,
P.S. Itkhorj, District Chatra, State Jharkhand.
17. Mahendra Prasad Yadav, aged about 45 years, son
of Sri Shivnath Yadav, resident of village Belhari, P.O.
Dhouthwa, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State
Jharkhand.
18. Dilip Kumar Singh, aged about 46 years son of Sri
Roshan Singh, resident of village Najirganj, P.O.
Badgawan, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State
Jharkhand.
19. Arvind Kumar Yadav, aged about 34 years, son of
30
Sri Badri Gope, resident of village Tonatand, P.O. and

P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State Jharkhand.
20. Sujit Kumar Sinha, aged about 38 years, son of Sri
Mahendra Kishor Prasad, resident of village Dhuna, P.O.
and P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State Jharkhand.
21. Ashok Kumar Dangi, aged about 50 years, son of
Late Rewa Dangi, resident of village Nagwan, P.O. and
P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State JHarkhand.
22. Bhuneshwar Yadav, aged about 34 years, son of
Sri Chandra Yadav, resident of Village Murumdag, P.O.
Dhouthwa, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State
Jharkhand.
23. Dashrath Saw, aged about 42 years, son of Sri
Tilak Saw, resident of village Pankri Barwadih, P.O. and
P.S. Barkagaon District Hazaribagh, State Jharkhand.
24. Tahal Yadav, aged about 50 years, son of Heman
Yadav, resident of village Rajbar, P.O. Dhouthwa and
P.S. Itkhori, District Chatrra, State Jharkhand.
25. Vivekanad Sinha, aged about 39 years, son of Sri
Sadanand Prasdad, resident of village Surjugadi, P.O.
Gadinawadih, P.S. Jamua, District Giridih, State
Jharkhand.
26. Ramji Gope, aged about 44 years son of Sri Sukar
Gope, resident of village Ashriya, P.O. Karni, P.S.
27. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, aged about 47 years, son of
Sri Pokhan Saw, resident of village Serad, P.O. Karni,
28. Tapeshwar Yadav, aged about 33 years, son of Sri
Ganesh Mahto, resident of village Lakshanpur, P.O.
Unta, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State Jharkhand.
29. Phagu Saw, aged about 48 years, son of Late
Ganesh Saw, resident of village Parsouni, P.O. Parsouni,
31
30. Ram Kumar Yadav, aged about 37 years, son of Sri

Janki Yadav, resident of village Nayakhap, P.O.
Barisakhi, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State
Jharkhand.
31. Ramlakhan Prajapati, aged about 47 years, son of
Sri Mahabir Prajapati, resident of village and P.O.
Barisakhi, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State
Jharkhand.
32. Ramkeshwar Prasad, aged about 36 years, son of
Sri Shaleegram Prasad, Permanent Resident of Village
Mairag Khurd, P.O. Jogariya, P.S. Pratappur, District
Chatra, PIN-825404, Jharkhand and present resident of
village Sijua, P.O. Jogiyara, P.S. Pratappur, District
Chatra, State Jharkhand.
33. Nandkishor Prajapati, aged about 39 years, son of
Sri Maharu Prajapati, resident of village Bukhori, P.O. &
34. Praveen Kumar Yadav, resident of village
Maheshbathan, P.O. Birajpur, P.S. Palojori, District
Deoghar, State Jharkhand.
35. Kajal Kumar Roy, aged about 36 years, son of Sri
Jaldhar Roy, resident of village Upperbandha, P.O.
Sagarbhanga, P.S. Palojori, District Deoghar, State
Jharkhand.
36. Deva Nand Mistry, aged about 35 years, son of Sri
Janki Mistry, resident of village Manjhi Metriya, P.O.
Birajpur, P.S. Palojori, District Deoghar, State
Jharkhand.
37. Kamdeo Mandal, aged about 41 yars, son of Sri
Tirthnath Mandal, resident of village Khaga, P.O. Sarsa,
P.S. Palojori, District Deoghar, State Jharkhand.
38. Chandan Kumar, aged about 31 years, son of Late
Mithilesh Prasad Sah, residen tof village Nawadih, P.O.
Busbutia, P.S. Palojori, District Deoghar, State
32
Jharkahnd.
39. Bijay Kumar Dutta, aged about 36 years, son of Sri
Sufal Chandra Dutta, resident of Village and P.O. Asna,
P.S. Palojori District Deoghar, State Jharkhand.
40. Goutam Kumar Singh, aged about 35 years, son of
Sri Mirlidhar Singh, resident of village Uparbandha, P.O.
Sagarbandha, P.S. Khaga, District Deoghar, State
Jharkhand.
41. Vikash Chandra Roy, aged about 36 years, son of
Sri Jaydeo Prasad Roy, residen tof village Uparbandha,
P.O. Sagarbandha, P.S. Khaga, District Deoghar, State
Jharkhand.
42. Amar Chandra Roy, aged about 45 years, son of
Sri Baldeo Prasad Roy, resident of village Bishanpur,
P.O. Sagarbandha, P.S. Khaga, District Deoghar, State
Jharkhand.
43. Pramod Kumar, aged about 35 years, son of Sri
Horil Sahu, resident of vilage Bandu, P.O. and P.S.
Lawalong, District Chatra, State Jharkhand.
44. Shambhu Kumar Sahu, aged about 37 years, son
of Sri Rajendra Sahu, resident of village Bandu, P.O.
and P.S. Lawalong, District Chatra, PIN State
Jharkhand.
45. Nitu Kumari, aged about 33 years, wife of Sri Anil
Prasad Sahu, resident of village Bandu, P.O. and P.S.
Lawalong, District Chatra, State Jharkhand.
46. Bibha Roy, aged about 38 years, wife of Sri
Baleshwar Yadav, resident of village Rupin,
P.O.Barisakhi, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, State
Jharkhand.
47. Ishwar Yadav, aged about 47 years, son of Sri Keso
Yadav, resident of village Sewal, P.O. and P.S.
Mayurhand, District Chatra, State Jharkhand.
48. Basudeo Dnage, aged about 44 years, son of Sri
33
Pyari Mahto, resident of village Dhodhi, P.O.Mandhniay,

49. Manoj Kumar Pandey, aged about 45 years, son of
Sri Ramjatan Pandey, resident of village and P.O.
Mandhnya, P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra, State
Jharkhand.
50. Anju Kumari, aged about 44 years, wife of Sri
Ashok Dangi, resident of village Dhodhi, P.O.
Mandhnya, P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra, State
Jharkhand.
51. Devendra Kumar, aged about 34 years, son of Sri
Jainath Mahto, resident of village Govinddih, Barkagaon
(West), P.O.a nd P.S. Barkagaon, District Hazaribagh,
State Jharkhand.
52. Tulsi Mahto, aged about 37 years, son of Sri Jethu
Mahto, resident of village Govinddih, Barkagaon (West),
P.O. and P.S. Barkagaon, District Hazaribagh, State
Jharkhand.
53. Alok Prasad Dangi, aged about 34 years, son of Sri
Daulat Prasad Dangi, resident of village Siwadih,
Barkagaon P.O. and P.S. Barkagaon, District
Hazaribagh, State Jharkhand.
-------- Respondents/Writ Petitioners
With
L.P.A. No. 628 of 2022
------
Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. &
P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand.
2. The Director of Primary Education, Human Resource
Development, Government of Jharkhand, having its office
at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi,
State Jharkhand.
3. The District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi, P.O.,
34
P.S. Ranchi and District Ranchi.

P.O., P.S. Hazaribagh and District Hazaribagh.
5. The District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro, P.O.,
P.S. Bokaro and District Bokaro.
6. The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih, P.O.,
P.S. Giridih and District Giridih.
7. The District Superintendent of Education, Garhwa, P.O.,
P.S. Garhwa and District Garhwa.
8. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad,
P.O., P.S. Dhanbad and District Dhanbad.
9. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra, P.O.,
P.S. Chatra and District Chatra.
P.O., P.S. Godda and District Godda.
Sahebganj, P.O., P.S. Sahebganj and District Sahebganj.
P.O., P.S. Pakur and District Pakur.
Jamtara, P.O., P.S. Jamtara and District Jamtara.
Deoghar, P.O., P.S. Deoghar, and District Deoghar.
Koderma, P.O., P.S. Koderma and District Koderma.
P.O., P.S. Dumka and District Dumka.
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. Ramgarh and District Ramgarh.
18. The District Superintendent of Education, Gumla,
P.O., P.S. Gumla and District Gumla.
Simdega, P.O., P.S. Simdega and District Simdega.
35
Lohardaga, P.O., P.S. Lohardaga and District Lohardaga.

21. The District Superintendent of Education, Latehar,
P.O., P.S. Latehar and District Latehar.
22. The District Superintendent of Education, Palamu,
P.O., P.S. Palamu and District Palamu.
Versus
1. Manmohan Mahato, aged about 41 years son of Bhiku
Mahato resident of village Uparbarga P.O. & P.S. Barlanga
Dist. Ramgarh.
2. Dharmnath Mahato aged about 47 years son of Rohin
Mahato resident of village Harna P.O. & P.S. Barlanga,
Dist. Ramgarh.
3. Bindeshwar Prasad aged about 40 years son of
Rameshwar Mahato resident of village Jamira, P.O. Jamira
P.S. Rajrappa Distt. Ramgarh.
4. Jagdish Mahato, aged about 39 years son of Sohray
Mahato, resident of village Jamira P.O. Jamira P.S.
Rajrappa Distt. Ramgarh.
5. Mahendra Kumar, aged about 41 years, son of Baldeo
Mahato, resident of village Usra P.O. Bariyatu, P.S.
6. Surendra Kumar, aged about 40 years son of Dumar
Mahato, resident of village Urba P.O. Bariyatu, P.S.
7. Ritlal Mahato, aged about 46 years son of Dinanath
Mahato, resident of village Kulhi P.O. Potamdega P.S.
8. Dwarika Prasad, aged about 42 years son of Jaleshwar
Mahato, resident of village Soso, P.O. Soso, P.S. Rajrappa
Distt. Ramgarh.
9. Sonaram Kumar aged about 44 years son of
Bhuneshwar Mahato, resident of village Rajrappa P.O. &
P.S. Rajrappa Distt. Ramgarh.
36
10. Yugeshwar Mahato, aged about 38 years son of

Rameshwar Mahato, resident of village Chano P.O.
Gosaibaliya P.S. Barkagaon Distt. Hazaribagh.
11. Vikash Kumar Singh aged about 36 years son of
Raj Kishor Singh resident of village Bermo Railway
Station, P.O. Bermo P.S. Gandhi Nagar, Distt. Bokaro.
12. Kalicharan Rawani aged about 43 years son of Sri
Daso Rawani Resident of village Kurukpania M/111, P.O.
Sunday Bazar, P.S. Gandhi Nagar, Dist. Bokaro.
13. Binod Kumar Goswami aged about 43 years son of
Jainath Goswami resident of village Balidih Goswami
Tolla, P.O. & P.S. Balidih, Distt. Bokaro.
14. Rajesh Kumar, aged about 50 years son of Babulal
Ram, resident of village Dhori Basti, P.O. Dhori, P.S.
Bermo Distt. Bokaro.
15. Bholaram Rawani, aged about 44 ytears son of
Sohan Ram Rawani resident of village Kalyanpur P.O.&
P.S. Baroo, Distt. Bokaro.
16. Deepak Kumar Mahato, aged about 39 years son of
Raghu Nadan Mahato, resident of village Baroo, P.O.
Baroo, P.S. Jaridih, Dist. Bokaro.
17. Lokeshwar Mahato, aged about 43 years son of
Hari Lal Mahato, resident of village Budhidih, P.O.& P.S.
Dugda, Dist. Bokaro.
18. Raju Kewat, aged about 40 years son of Dukhan
Kewat, resident of village Dugda Basti, P.O. Amlo P.S.
Bermo Dist Bokaro.
19. Shyam Sundar Mahato, aged about 43 years son of
Babulal Mahto, resident of village Pipradih, P.O.
Narayanpur P.S. Penk, Distt. Bokaro.
20. Nitish Kumar, aged about 39 years son of
Shyamlal Mahto, resident of village Narayanpur, P.O.
Narayanpur, P.S. Penk Narayanpur, District Bokaro.
21. Ashok Mahto, aged about 41 years son of
37
Koleshwar Mahto, resident of village Chhotki Punnu, P.O.

& P.S. Badki Punnu, Distt. Bokaro.
22. Sandeep Prasad, aged about 39 years, son of
Rameshwar Sahu, residejhnt of village Badki Punnu, P.O.
& P.S. Mahuatand, District Bokaro.
23. Dwarika Prasad, aged about 44 years son of Raju
Mahato, resident of village Khirabeda, P.O. & P.S.
Lalpaniyea, Distt. Bokaro.
24. Lalan Prasad, aged about 47 years, son of Fodari
Mahto, resident of village Bara, P.O. Atka, P.S.
Bishnugarh, Distt. Hazaribagh.
25. Naresh Kumar, aged about 40 years, son of Pyari
Mahto, resident of village Chhotki Punnu, P.O.& P.S.
Badki Punnu, Distt. Bokaro.
26. Panchdev Kumar Mahto, aged about 38 years son
of Bitalal Mahto, resident of village & P.O. Chotki Punnu,
P.S. Badki Punnu, Distt. Bokaro.
27. Deepak Kumar Mahatha, aged about 40 years son
of Amulya Ratan Mahatha, Resident of village & P.O.
Ritudih, P.S. Siwandih, Distt. Bokaro.
28. Tapeshwar Kumar, aged about 50 years son of
Ramsharan Sadhu, resident of village P.O. & P.S. Badki
Punnu, Bokaro.
29. Bihari Kanisth, agerd about 38 years, son of
Mahendra Choudhary, residehnt of village B.S,L.L.H,
Street No. 06, Qtr. No. 35, P.O. & P.S. Siwandih, Distt.
Bokaro.
30. Santosh Kumar, aged about 43 years son of
Khemlal Mahato, resident of village Jamnijara, P.O. Konar
Dem, P.S. Bishnugarh, Distt. Hazaribagh.
31. Rohit Kumar Singh, aged about 36 years son of
Shankar Singh, Resident of village Bakspura, P.O. & P.S.
Nawada, Distt. Hazaribagh.
32. Tirth Kumar Pandey, aged about 51 years, son of
38
Alk Niranjan Pandey, Resident of village Banaso, P.O.

Banaso, P.S. Bishnugarh, Distt. Hazaribagh.
33. Baneshwar Mahato, aged about 42 years, son of
Somar Mahato, resident of village Retwa, P.O. Karma, P.S.
Mandu, Distt. Ramgarh.
34. Shiv Shankar Mahtha, aged about 45 years, son of
Shashi Bhushan Mahtha, Resident of village Ritudih, P.O.
& P.S. Siwandih, Distt. Ramgarh.
35. Kumar Dharamvir, aged about 41 years, son of
Basudeo Mahto, resident of village Pipradih, P.O.
Narayanpur, P.S. Penk (Narayanpur), Distt. Bokaro.
36. Prakash Kumar Sharma, aged about 42 years, son
of Bhola Thakur, Resident of village Dumrona, P.O.
Dumrona, P.S. Ichak, Distt. Hazaribagh.
37. Rakesh Kumar Saw, aged abouyt 37 years, son of
Anand Prasad Saw, Resident of village Kelatand, P.O. &
P.S. Keskari, Distt. Giridih.
38. Sunil Kumar Sharma, aged about 38 years, son of
Shambhunath Sharma, Resident of village Mokamo, P.O.
Koridih, P.S. Suriya, Distt. Giridih.
39. Nagmani Kumar Sharma, aged about 40 years, son
of Ganesh Mistri, Resident of village Kelatand, P.O.
Keskari, P.S. Suriya, Distt. Giridih.
40. Samir Sikrawar, aged about 48 years, son of Late
Ram Lakhan Singh, Resident of village Rewali, P.O.
Rewali, P.S. Katkamdaga, Distt. Hazaribagh.
41. Manoj Kumar, aged about 46 years, son of Ramlal
Sahu, Resident of village Amgawao, P.O. Sila, P.S.
Simariya, Distt. Chatra.
42. Suresh Mahato, aged about 54 years, son of
Shyamlal Mahto, Resident of village Ichak, P.O. Sila, P.S.
Simariya, Distt. Chatra.
43. Manoj Kumar, aged about 50 years, son of
Bindeshwari Prasad, Resident of village Ichak (Nawatand),
39
P.O Sila, P.S. Simariya, Distt. Chatra.

44. Arbind Kumar Pandey, aged about 36 years, son of
Shree Ram Chandra Pandey, Resident of village
Shersingha, P.O. Phulwariya, P.S. Markachho, Distt.
Koderma.
45. Birendra Kumar Mahto, aged about 39 years, son
of Kauleshwar Mahto, Resident of village Badjna Colliery,
P.O. Deviyana, P.S. Nirsha, Distt. Dhanbad.
46. Sharwan Kumar, aged about 38 years, son of Sri
Ashwani Sahu, Resident of village Sunday Bazar, P.O.
Sunday Bazar, P.S. Gandhi Nagar, Distt. Bokaro.
47. Anand Kumar, aged about 53 years, son of
Dwarika Pandey, Resident of village P.O. Padma, P.S. Op.
Padma, Distt. Bokaro.
48. Md. Yusuf Ali, aged about 40 years, so of Abdul
Aziz, Resident of village Gudwa, P.O. Sitagarh, P.S.
Muffasil, Distt. Hazaribagh.
49. Ramesh Prasad Singh, aged about 58 years, son of
Jaideo Singh, Resident of village Nawadih, P.O. Sabalpur,
P.S. Suriya, Distt. Giridih.
50. Narayan Mahto, aged about 37 years, son of
Sukhlal Mahto, Resident of village Nawadih, P.O. Bagodar,
P.S. Bagodar, District Giridih.
51. Mahesh Mistri, aged about 53 years, so nof
Khublal Mistry, Resident of Village Bagodih, P.O. Bagodih,
P.S. Suriya, Distt. Giridih.
52. Intaj Ansari, aged about 25 years, son of Kamrddin
Ansari, Resident of village Chainpur, P.O. Chainpur, P.S.
Narayanpur, District Jamtara.
53. Gopi Kant Rakshit, aged about 32 years, son of
Khagen Rakshit, Resident of village Chainpur, P.O.
Chainpur, P.S. Narayanpur, District Jamtara.
54. Manoj Kumar, aged about 44 years, son of Suraj
Narayan Prasad, Resident of village & P.O. Kapka, P.S.
40
Barkatha, District Hazaribagh.

55. Nasheem Ansari, aged about 37 years, so of Md.
Hanif, Resident of village Butberiya, P.O. Chainpur, P.S.
Narayanpur, Distt. Jamtara.
With
L.P.A. No. 629 of 2022
------
Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. &
P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand.
Resource Development, Government of Jharkhand, having
its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District
3. The Deputy Commssioner cum Chairman, District
P.S. and District Hazaribagh, State Jharkhand.
P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh District Hazaribagh, State
Jharkhand.
Education Establishment Committee, Dhanbad, P.O. &
P.S., District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
Education Establishment Committee, Sahebganj, P.O. &
P.S. Sahebganj District Sahebganj, State Jharkhand.
8. The District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj,
P.O. P.S. Sahebganj, District Sahebganj.
Education Establishment Committee, Giridih, P.O., P.S.
and District Giridih, State Jharkhand.
41

P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih.
P.S. Ramgarh District Ramgarh, State Jharkhand.
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. and District Ramgarh.
Education Establishment Committee, Pakur, P.O. & P.S.
Pakur District Pakur, State Jharkhand.
P.O. & Pakur P.S. District Pakur.
Education Establishment Committee, Koderma, P.O. &
P.S. Koderma, District Koderma, State Jharkhand.
Koderma, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, District Koderma.
Education Establishment Committee, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S.
Deoghar, District Deoghar, State Jharkhand.
Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar.
Education Establishment Committee, Godda, P.O. & P.S.
Godda , District Godda, State Jharkhand.
P.O. & P.S. Godda District Godda.
Bokaro District Bokaro, State Jharkhand.
P.O. & P.S. Bokaro District Bokaro.
42
Dumka District Dumka, State Jharkhand.

P.O. & P.S. Dumka District Dumka.
Chatra, District Chatra, State Jharkhand.
26. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra,
P.O. & P.S. Chatra District Chatra.
Jamtara, District Jamtara, State Jharkhand.
Jamtara, P.O. & P.S. Jamtara, District Jamtara.
Versus
1. Md. Afshar Hussain, aged about 37 years, son of Md.
Hussain Ahmed, Resident of Baswa, P.O. & P.S.
Mahagama, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
2. Karamchand Yadav, aged about 46 years, son of Motilal
Yadav, resident of Dharmodih, P.O.Dharmodih, P.S.
3. Sanjay Kumar Jha, aged about 50 years son of
Dhananjay Prasad Jha, resident of Mahagama, P.O. & P.S.
4. Md. Sharif Ansari, aged about 50 years, son of Md.
Dabiruddin Ansari, resident of Barmasia, P.O. Nunbatta,
P.S. Nunbatta, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
5. Manoj Kumar Rana, aged about 38 years son of
Shatrughan Pandit, resident of Tetaria, P.O & P.S. Bara
Simra, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
6. Sanjiv Kumar, aged about 46 years, son of Gobardhan
Mandal, resident of Rangatarn, P.O. & P.S. Pathargama,
District Godda, State Jharkhand.
7. Uday Kant Sah, aged about 52 years son of Bhudeo
43
Sah, resident of Dhodhari, P.O. Ramla P.S. Godda, District

Godda, State Jharkhand.
8. Alimuddin Ansari Betab, aged about 47 years son of
Abdul Quasim resident of Dulidih, P.O. Chatra, P.S.
Poraiyahat, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
9. Md. Abid Alam, aged about 39 years, son of Md. Matin
Alam, resident of Dhanjor, P.O. Baliyadangal, P.S.
Maheshpur, District Pakur, State Jharkhand.
10. Akhilesh Kumar, aged about 45 years, so of
Sukdeo Panjiyara, resident of Babhaniya, P.O. & P.S.
Marpa, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
11. Shiv Chandra Kumar, aged about 41 yars, son of
Ram Briksh Pandit, resident of Kathon, P.O. Kathon, P.S.
Poraiyahat, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
12. Satyawan Kumar, aged about 46 years, son of
Makardhwaj Pandit, resident of Kurmi Chak, P.O.&P.S.
Kurmi Chak, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
13. Gopal Krishna Sah, aged about 38 years, son of
Late Yamuna Prasad Sah, resident of Boha, P.O.
Khariyani, P.S. Patharama, District Godda, State
Jharkhand.
14. Dilip Ramani, aged about 42 years, son of Sri
Fekan Ramani, resident of Gangta Khurd, P.O. & P.S. &
15. Nehal Raj, aged about 42 years, so of Kamala Kant
Sah, resident of Poreyahat, P.O. Poreyahat, P.S.
Poreyahat, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
16. Rabindra Prasad Sah, aged about 56 years, son of
Bhagwat Prasad Sah, resident of Nawadih, P.O.Nawadih,
P.S. Jama, District Dumka, State Jharkhand.
17. Rajiv Kumar Poddar, aged about 48 years, son of
Thakur Prasad Poddar, resident of Mirjachak, P.O.
Anjana, P.S. Anjana, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
18. Birendra Kumar Singh, aged about 55 years, son
44
of Rambilas Singh, resident of Yogidih, P.O.Taradiha P.S.

Taradiha, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
19. Rajesh Kumar, aged about 40 years son of
Mahendra Prasad Sah, resident of Pathargama P.O. & P.S.
Pathargama, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
20. Sunil Kumar Bhagat, aged about 51 years son of
Late Ram Narayan Bhagatr, resident of Tulsikitta, P.O. &
P.S. Pathargama, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
21. Sachidanand Pandit, aged about 47 years son of
Sri Madhushudhan Pandit, resident of Pathargama, P.O.
& P.S. Pathargama, DIstrict Godda, State Jharkhand.
22. Raj Kumar Pandit, aged about 36 years son of
Dindayal Pandit, resident of Bagjori, P.O. Lalmatia, P.S.
23. Om Prakash Jaiswal, aged about 39 years, son of
Shiv Kumar Bhagat, resident of Bagjori, PO Lalmatia PS
Mahagama, District Pakur, State Jharkhand.
24. Mukesh Kumar, aged about 41 years son of
Ramesh Mandal, resident of Babhania P.O. Goria & P.S.
Lalmatia, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
25. Obinath Mahto, aged about 41 years son of
Panchanand Mahto, resident of Malbhadroy, P.O. Haripur
Gairbanna, P.S. Godda, District Godda, State Jarkhand.
26. Md. Abdul Mannan aged about 40 years son of Md.
Hanif resident of Kushmahra P.O. Kushmahra P.S.
Hanwara, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
27. Dilip Kumar Yadav, aged about 41 years son of
Kalicharan Yadav, resident of Kusumghati, P.O.
Kerobazar, P.S. Pathargama, District Godda, State
Jharkhand.
28. Khub Lal Sah, aged about 45 years son of Late
Rupan Sah, resident of Ghatiyari, P.O. Ghatiyari, P.S.
Sunderpahari, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
29. Sanjay Kumar Saha, aged about 46 years son of
45
Kulesh Mandal, resident of Ghatiyari, P.O. Ghatiyari, P.S.

30. Anil Kumar Pandit, aged about 37 years son of
Bholanath Pandit, resident of Tilobadar, P.O. Kurmichak,
P.S. Kurmichak, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
31. Md. Mustaquim Ansari, aged about 56 years son of
Md. Ulfat Mian, resident of Mahuatand, P.O. Ghatiyari
P.S. Sunderpahari, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
32. Shambhu Kumar Saha, aged about 48 years son of
Bachneshwar Saha, resident of Bhanjpur, P.O. Bhanjpur,
P.S. Mahagama, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
33. Md. Murtaja Ansari, aged about 35 years son of
Md. Bechan Ansari, resident of Baredih, P.O. Lahathi, P.S.
34. Suchan Kumar Sah, aged about 38 years son of
Adhik Lal Sah, resident of Ghatiyari, P.O. Ghatiyari P.S.
35. Anil Kumar Sah, aged about 48 years son of
Dhaneshwar Sah, resident of Balpahari, P.O. Sarouni
Bazar, P.S. Sarouni Bazar, District Godda, State
Jharkhand.
36. Pankaj Kumar Mandal, aged about 49 years son of
Anil Kumar Mandal, resident of Chorwad Block Poriyahat,
P.O. Agiyamore P.S. Poraiyahat, District Godda, State
Jharkhand.
37. Manoj Kumar Goswami, aged about 51 years son
of Shyam Prasad Goswami, resident of Boriyo, P.O.&P.S.
Boriyo, District Sahebganj, State Jharkhand.
38. Nitya Nand, aged about 43 years son of Sri Ganga
Sagar Sah, resident of Pelgarhi, P.O. & P.S. Kurmichak,
39. Jay Shankar Prasad, aged about 41 years son of
Arun Kumar Mandal, resident of Sarouni Bazar, P.O. &
P.S. Sarouni Bazar, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
46
40. Bipin Kumar, aged about 45 years son of Sri

Tribeni Prasad Jaiswal, resident of Mohanpur, P.O.
Mohanpur, P.S. Mahagama, District Godda, State
Jharkhand.
41. Srikant Kumar, aged about 37 years, son of
Indralal Pandit, resident of Tilobadar, P.O. Kurmichak,
P.S. Kurmichak District Godda, State Jharkhand.
42. Niraj Jha, aged about 38 years, son of Subodh
Jha, resident of Baniyadih, P.O. Baniyadih, P.S. Thakur
Gangti District Godda, State Jharkhand.
43. Girendra Kumar Sharma, aged about 46 years, son
of Raghu Nandan Sharma, resident of Khajri Chak, P.O.
Malmandro, P.S. Malmandro, District Godda, State
Jharkhand.
44. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, aged about 43 years son of
Raghu Nandan Sharma, resident of Khajri Chak, P.O.
Malmandro, P.S. Malmandro, District Godda, State
Jharkhand.
45. Dinesh Kumar Sah, aged about 36 years, son of
Phulchand Sah, resident of Jognadih, P.O. Jamni
Paharpur, P.S. Godda, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
46. Sharvan Kumar, aged about 37 years, son of
Indrajeet Sah, resident of Jognadih, P.O. Jamni Paharpur,
P.S. Godda, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
47. Bhairo Manjhi, aged about 56 years, son of Late
Guru Dayal Manjhi, resident of Bharti Kitta, P.O. Khatnei,
P.S. Godda, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
48. Gopal Krishna Upadhyay, ageda bout 58 years,
son of Sridhar Upadhyay, resident of Viran Kitta, P.O.
Balbadda, P.S. Godda, District Pakur, State Jharkhand.
49. Dilip Kumar Mahto, aged about 50 years, son of
Bhim Mahto, resident of Kouwadhab, P.O. Chinadhab,
P.S. Godda District Godda, State Jharkhand.
50. Ram Khelan Sah, ageda bout 42 years, son of
47
Panchanan Sah, resident of Chainahab, P.O. Chainadhab,

P.S. Godda District Godda, State Jharkahand.
51. Pradeep Kumar Das, aged about 46 years, son of
Dhani Kumar, resident of Chorbad, P.O. Agiyamore, P.S.
Godda District Godda, State JHarkhand.
52. Chandan Kumar Singh, aged about 35 years son of
Gopal Prasad Singh, resident of Pandubathan, P.O. Godda
College, P.S. Godda (Nagar Thana), District Godda, State
Jharkhand.
53. Saroj Kumar Yadav aged about 42 years son of
Sushil Kumar Yadav, resident of Bhattachak, P.O.
Gandhigram, P.S. Pathargama, District Godda, State
Jharkahnd.
54. Jay Kishor Kapri, aged about 53 years son of
Yogendra Kapri resident of Bisaha P.O. Latautana, P.S.
Pathargama, District Godda, State Jharkahnd.
55. Rajesh Kumar Sah, aged about 37 years son of Sri
Kuldeo Sah, resident of Gaychand, P.O. Chinyadhab, P.S.
Godda, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
56. Bishnu Kumar Paul, aged about 39 years son of
Ashawani Kumar Paul, resident of Saranda, P.O.
Khariyani, P.S. Pathargama, District Godda, State
Jharkhand.
57. Dinesh Kumar Mandal, aged about 56 years son of
Gangaram Mandal, resident of Ghatpaharpur, P.O.
Mohanpur, P.S. Godda, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
58. Devendra Pandit, aged about 57 years, son of
Thakur Dayal Pandit, resident of Runjee P.O. Baniyadih,
P.S. Thakur Gangti, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
59. Nagendra Kumar, aged about 43 years son of Sri
Anant Kumar, resident of Runjee, P.O. Baniyadih, P.S.
Thakur Gangti, District Godda, State Jharkhand.
60. Bhawani Mahto, aged about 58 years son of Late
Govind Mahto, resident of Dahupakiya, P.O. Chapri, P.S.
48
Thakur Gangti, District Godda, State Jharkhand.

With
W.P. (S). No. 2049 of 2022
------
Manoj Kumar Mahto, aged about 42 years son of Prahlad
Mahato, resident of village Kuiya, P.O. Amtal, P.S. Tisra,
------------- Writ petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building,
Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagganathpur, Distirct
3. The Director, Primary Education, School Education and
Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project
Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagganathpur,
Distirct Ranchi, State Jharkhand.
4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District
& District Chatra, State Jharkhand.
5. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra, P.O.
& P.S. & District Chatra, State Jharkhand
Education Establishment Committee, Koderma, P.O.& P.S.
& District Koderma, State Jharkhand.
7. The District Superintendent of Education, Koderma,
P.O.& P.S. & District Koderma, State Jharkhand.
Education Establishment Committee, Dhanbad, P.O.&P.S.
& District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
P.O.&P.S. & District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.
49
Education Establishment Committee, Pakur, P.O.& P.S. &

District Pakur, State Jharkhand.
P.O.& P.S. & District Pakur, State Jharkhand.
Education Establishment Committee, Giridih, P.O. & P.S.
& District Giridih, State Jharkhand.
P.O. & P.S. & District Giridih, State Jharkhand.
& District Bokaro, State Jharkhand
Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. & District Bokaro, State Jharkhand
Education Establishment Committee, Godda, P.O. & P.S.
& District Godda, State Jharkhand.
P.O. & P.S. & District Godda, State Jharkhand.
& District Dumka, State Jharkhand
P.O. & P.S. & District Dumka, State Jharkhand
P.S. & District Hazaribagh, State Jharkhand
Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. & District Hazaribagh, State
Jharkhand
P.S. & Ramgarh, State Jharkhand
50
Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S. & Ramgarh, State Jharkhand

Education Establishment Committee, Sahebganj, P.O. &
P.S. & District Sahabganj, State Jharkhand
Sahebganj, P.O. & P.S. & District Sahabganj, State
Jharkhand.
& District Jamtara, State Jharkhand
Jamtara, P.O. & P.S. & District Jamtara, State Jharkhand
------------- Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
-------
For the Appellants-State: Mr.Sachin Kumar, AAG-II
Mr. Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG II
Ms. Surabhi, AC to AAG II
Mr. Amit Kumar, SC (Mines)-II
For the Respondents : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Adv

Mr. Kumar Sundaram, Adv
Mr. TejaswatiSafalta, Adv
Mr. Ishank Ranjan, Adv
Mr. Chanchal Jain, Adv
Ms. Tanya Singh, Adv

[LPA 230/22]
Mrs. Sarita Gupta, Adv

Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Adv
[LPA 482 & 629/22]
[WPS 2049/22]
Mr. Baleshwar Yadav, Adv
[LPA 626/22]
Mr. Deepankar, Adv
For the Intervener : Mr. Abhilsh Kumar, Adv

(LPA 203/22)
------
51
Order No.23/Dated 15th September,2023

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:
1. Since these appeals arise out of common
order/judgment, as such they are heard together
and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. One writ petition, being W.P. (S) No. 2049 of
2022, is also listed along with these batch matters. It
appears from order dated 16.08.2022 passed in W.P.
(S) No. 2049 of 2022 that on the request made by
learned counsel for the parties that since similar
matters are pending before the Division Bench of
this Court in LPA No. 203 of 2022 and analogous
cases, writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2049 of 2022
was directed to be listed along with LPA No. 203 of
2022 and analogous cases for adjudication.
Accordingly, the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2049
of 2022 has been listed along with these batch
matters, as the outcome of the writ petition will
depend upon these intra-court appeals.
3. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under
Clause-10 of Letters Patent, is directed against
common order/judgment dated 16.02.2022 passed
by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S)
No. 2378 of 2019 and batch matters, whereby and
whereunder, while disposing of the writ petitions, the
learned Single Judge directed the respondents to

52
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. It was further directed
that 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 the 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. The order passed by the learned Single
Judge is under challenge in these intra-court
appeals.
4. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings
made in the writ petitions and annexures appended

53
therewith, is as under:
5. Advertisements for appointment of candidates
to the post of Intermediate Trained Teachers in
different districts of the State of Jharkhand were
published by the Office of District Superintendent of
Education of the respective. As per the
advertisement, 50% of the posts were required to be
filled by Para Teachers and rest 50% seats were to be
filled with non-para teacher category candidates.
Petitioners, having requisite qualifications, applied
for the aforesaid vacancies in their respective para
category and non-para category in different districts
of the State of Jharkhand and submitted their
certificates. It is stated that their names appeared at
the respective districts in the data base cum Merit
list. Thereafter, several rounds of counseling were
held at all the districts and several candidates were
called for counseling and given appointment.
6. However, due to several irregularities,
inconsistency and anomalies in the counseling
process, several writ petitions were filed before this
Court and two of the writ petitions, which are of
relevance to adjudicate the lis are being W.P.(S) no.
19 of 2016 with W.P.(S.) no. 32 of 2016 and other
analogous cases, were taken up together and the

54
learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions vide
judgment dated 02.02.2017 directing the
respondents-authorities to make appointment
according to merit of the candidates on all unfilled
advertised vacancies by conducting one time
counseling, against which, the respondent-State
preferred Letters Patent Appeal, being L.P.A. no. 168
of 2017, which was dismissed by the Hon‟ble
Division Bench vide judgment dated 11.05.2018 with
the specific observation to comply the directions as
issued by learned Single Judge at paragraphs 19
and 20 of the judgment dated 02.02.2017 passed in
W.P.(S) no. 19 of 2016 with W.P.(S.) no. 32 of 2016.
7. Simultaneously, on the same day i.e.
11.05.2018 another Letters Patent Appeal being
L.P.A. no. 186 of 2017 with L.P.A. no. 199 of 2017
preferred against the judgment/order dated
02.03.2017 passed in W.P.(S.) No. 6031 of 2015 and
W.P. (S) No. 173 of 2016 was taken up for
consideration by the Hon‟ble Division Bench and the
same was disposed of directing the respondents-
authorities to initiate the counseling of the original
petitioners as early as possible so that it can be
completed within a period of four months from today
and further their candidature shall be considered as

55
per non-para teacher category vacancies subject to
fulfilling the conditions by these appellants regarding
eligibility criteria for age etc.
8. Further, on 13.05.2019 another two sets of
writ petitions, being W.P. (S.) no. 2142 of 2019 with
analogous cases; and W.P.(S) no. 768 of 2019 with
analogous cases, were taken up and allowed vide
order dated 13.05.2019 holding that in view of order
passed in LPA No. 186 of 2017, not only the
appellants of the said intra-court appeals but all the
writ petitioners need to be given a chance in the
counseling processes for the reason that the issue
which was in dispute has now been settled and
ambiguity as to whether a Para Teacher can apply
under Non-para Teacher category has been set at rest
by the Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No. 186 of 2017
and accordingly direction was passed upon the State
to include the name of all these writ petitioners also
in the counseling process for selection for the post of
Assistant Teachers.
9. On the basis of several judicial
pronouncements and directions issued by the this
Court in writ petitions and intra-court appeals, the
State issued “Resolution” on 02.05.2019 stating
therein to hold final round of counseling against the

56
remaining vacant seats for each districts in the
respective categories (Para category as well as Non
Para category). Further, several directions and
conditions were issued for counseling in the said
“Resolution” dated 02.05.2019.
10. It is the case of the petitioners that thereafter a
tentative list was prepared and another round of
district wise counseling was conducted. It is stated
that though the petitioners had applied for several
districts but their names were not included in
counseling list for any of the districts, on the
contrary, candidates having lesser marks than the
petitioners were included in the counseling list and
were also called for appearing in the counseling and
had been given appointment in the year 2019 itself
but the petitioners were left out.
11. Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioners
approached this Court by filing series of writ
petitions on the ground that counseling was to be
conducted against the vacant seats in light of the
advertisement of the year 2015 for all the respective
categories i.e. para as well as non-para category.
Further, since the petitioners have secured more
marks in the merit list than the candidates who have
been appointed in the year 2019 therefore, the

57
candidature of these petitioners ought to have been
considered. Since these petitioners were never called
for counseling as such their candidature ought to
have been considered in terms of Clause 6 of the
Resolution/Sankalp dated 02.05.2019.
12. Learned counsel further argued that in light of
the direction given in Order dated 13.05.2019 in
W.P. (S) no. 768 of 2019 with analogous cases the
Respondents ought to have considered the cases of
all the candidates depending upon the merit list
including the candidates who had not approached
the Hon‟ble Court. For several districts, the names of
same candidates were published for counseling and
as such, the seats remained vacant even after the
counseling was conducted as one candidate could
have participated in the counseling for only one
district.
13. Learned counsel has further submitted that in
several districts the candidates who have obtained
lesser marks than the petitioners have been included
in the merit list and called for counseling and
appointed after counseling, only on the ground that
earlier they had approached before this Hon‟ble
Court for redressal of their grievances.
14. The said ground of the respondent-State is not

58
tenable since a clear-cut observation has been made
by this Hon‟ble Court that, “When this dispute is set
at rest, it cannot be said that only those persons, on
whose application the issue is resolved, can only get
the benefit. Benefit of the decision should be given to
all those persons, who are governed by the final
judgment”.
15. Learned counsel further submitted that the
Respondent State filed Counter Affidavit showing the
chart of cut off marks for all the districts of State of
Jharkhand and from there it becomes evident that
the petitioners are having more marks than the last
candidate who have been appointed in their
respective categories at their respective districts.
16. While on the other hand, the respondents-State
submitted that advertised posts belong to district
cadre, hence the cut-off marks vary for each category
in each district due to the number of applications
received by the respective districts and number of
candidates appearing in the counselling process.
17. The learned Single Judge, after considering the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties, allowed the writ petition, against which the
instant intra-court appeals have been preferred.
18. It is evident from the aforesaid factual aspect

59
that in pursuance to „Jharkhand Primary School
Teacher Recruitment Rules, 2012’ advertisements
were published, for appointment to the post of
Intermediate Trained Teachers in different districts
of the State of Jharkhand, by the Office of District
Superintendent of Education of the respective
districts. As per advertisement, 50% of the seats are
required to be filled by Para Teachers and rest 50%
seats were to be filled with non-para teacher
categories. Petitioners, having requisite
qualifications, applied for the aforesaid vacancies in
their respective para category and non-para category
in different districts of the State of Jharkhand and
submitted their certificates.
19. It is alleged that their names have appeared at
the respective districts in the data base cum Merit
list but they were not finally selected. In the
meanwhile, due to several irregularities,
process, several writ applications were filed before
this Court.
20. The first set of writ petitions, which are of
relevance for adjudication of lis herein and upon
which reliance has been placed by the learned
counsel for the parties are W.P. (S) no. 19 of 2016

60
and other analogous cases, which was allowed vide
judgment dated 02.02.2017 by the learned Single
Judge directing the respondents-authorities to make
appointment according to merit of the candidates on
all unfilled advertised vacancies by conducting one
time counseling.
21. Being aggrieved with the order passed by
learned Single Judge, the respondent-State preferred
Letters Patent Appeal, being L.P.A. no. 168 of 2017,
which was dismissed by the Hon‟ble Division Bench
vide Judgment dated 11.05.2018.
22. Another set of Letters Patent Appeal being
L.P.A. no. 186 of 2017 with L.P.A. no. 199 of 2017
was preferred by the writ petitioners-appellants
which was disposed of directing the Respondents-
petitioners as early as possible and further it was
held that their candidature shall be considered as
eligibility criteria for age etc.
23. It further appears that two sets of writ
petitions being W.P.(S.) no. 2142 of 2019 with
analogous cases; and W.P.(S) no. 768 of 2019 with
analogous cases, were allowed vide order 13.05.2019

61
holding that in view of order passed in LPA No. 186
of 2017, not only the appellants of the said LPA but
all the writ petitioners need to be given a chance in
the counseling processes for the reason that the
issue which was in dispute has now been settled and
ambiguity as to whether a Para Teacher can apply
under Non-para Teacher category has been set at
rest by the Hon‟ble Division Bench in LPA No. 186 of
2017 and accordingly direction was passed upon the
State to include the name of all these writ petitioners
also in the counseling process for selection for the
post of Assistant Teachers.
24. The Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Jharkhand taking into consideration
the judicial pronouncements, as mentioned above
and directions issued by the this Court in writ
petitions and intra-court appeals, issued “Resolution”
on 02.05.2019 stating therein to hold final round of
counseling against the remaining vacant seats for
each districts in the respective categories (Para
category as well as Non Para category).
25. It is the case of the petitioners that though the
petitioners applied for several districts but their
names were not included in counseling list of any of
the districts, however, names of candidates having

62
lesser marks than the petitioners were included in
the counseling list and were also called for appearing
in the counseling and had been given appointment
in the year 2019 itself.
26. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners approached
this Court by filing series of writ petitions on the
ground that counseling was to be conducted against
the vacant seats in light of the advertisement of the
year 2015 for all the respective categories i.e. para as
well as non-para category. Since the petitioners have
secured more marks in the merit list than the
candidates who have been appointed in the year
2019 therefore, the candidature of these petitioners
ought to have been considered.
27. The learned Single Judge has considered the
rival submissions advanced by the parties and
taking into consideration the order passed by Co-
ordiante Division Bench of this Court in LPA 186 of
2017 wherein it has been decided by directing the
State for inviting the petitioners as one time measure
even the candidate who are under para category and
are willing to participate in the counseling under
non-para category. The learned Single Judge taking
note of order passed by this Court in LPA No. 186 of
2017 has allowed all the writ petitions.

63
28. The order passed by learned Single Judge is
under challenge before this Court.
29. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned AAG II appearing
for the appellant-State has submitted that the order
passed by learned Single Judge, which is impugned
in these appeals, is contrary to the order passed by
Co-ordinate learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 19
of 2016, wherein it has been made clear that there
shall be only one round of counseling in all the
districts of the State.
30. Further, the candidates who were earlier called
for counseling shall not be called for counseling
except, those permitted by order of the Court.
31. The ground has been taken that the aforesaid
order has been affirmed by Division Bench of this
Court but the learned Single Judge while allowing
the writ petitions has not appreciated those facts by
taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment in
the similar circumstances.
32. It has further been submitted that the learned
Single Judge ought to have considered that
resolution dated 02.05.2019 issued in pursuance of
the guidelines issued by this Court that the
candidates who were previously called for counseling
would not be invited for counseling.

64
33. Hence, the order passed by learned Single
Judge, which is impugned is not sustainable in the
eye of law.
34. Per contra, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior
counsel assisted by other counsel appearing for the
writ petitioners has defended the order passed by
learned Single Judge wherein the learned Single
Judge has considered the judgment passed by
learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 19
of 2016, which has been affirmed in L.P.A. No. 168 of
2017.
35. It has submitted that if the facts of the case of
W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 will be considered which has
been filed on behalf of candidates under para-
teachers category and in that circumstances this
Court has passed order that even if the vacancy
remains a candidate will have only one chance to
participate in the process of counseling. But the
learned Co-ordinate Division Bench, the day when
the order passed by learned Co-ordinate Single
Bench in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 has affirmed the
said order by dismissing the intra-court appeal being
LPA No. 168 of 2017, has also decided an issue on
the same day in LPA No. 186 of 2017 with LPA No.
199 of 2017, wherein order passed in W.P. (S) No.

65
6031 of 2015 and W.P. (S) No. 173 of 2016 was
under challenge, in which the Co-ordinate learned
Division Bench while disposing of the said LPAs has
directed the respondent to consider the application
of candidates working as para teacher category even
if they fall under non-para category.
36. Learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners
on the basis of order passed in W.P. (S) No. 6031 of
2015 with W.P.(S) No. 173 of 2016, wherein
opportunity has been provided for consideration of
the candidature of para teachers under non-para
teacher category which has been affirmed vide order
dated 11.05.2018 passed in LPA No. 186 of 2017
with LPA No. 199 of 2017, has submitted that the
learned Single Judge has considered the order
passed in LPA No. 186 of 2017 with LPA No. 199 of
2017 and accordingly allowed the writ petition by
directing the respondents to provide a chance of
counseling under non-para category.
37. The learned senior counsel on the basis of
aforesaid ground has submitted that the order
passed by learned Single Judge suffers from no
error.
38. We have heard learned counsel for the parties,
perused the documents available on record and

66
finding recorded by learned Single Judge in the
impugned order.
39. The facts, which are not in dispute, is that the
petitioners, who were working as para teachers in
the different districts of the State of Jharkhand, in
pursuance to the advertisement published for
appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers,
applied under para and non-para category.
40. It is pertinent to note here that the said
advertisement was published in pursuance to
„Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Recruitment
Rules, 2012’ wherein it was decided to fill 50% seats
amongst para teacher category and rest 50% from
non-para teacher category. From plain reading of
Rules, 2012, it is evident that the Rules, 2012
nowhere put embargo upon the para teacher
category candidate to apply under non-para teacher
for consideration of their candidature if they are
otherwise eligible to apply for the same as per
eligibility criteria fixed for non-para teacher category
i.e., without granting any relaxation; meaning
thereby if a candidate belonging to para-teacher
category and intends to apply under non-para
category, such candidate has to fulfill the eligibility
criteria of non-para category and no relaxation of age

67
etc. of para category would be given to such
candidate.
41. It is the case of the writ petitioners that though
they belong to para-teacher category but having
fulfilled the eligibility criteria of non-para teacher
category applied for consideration of their
candidature under non-para teacher category.
42. It is further case of the petitioners that in
initial round of counseling though they could not
come in the zone of consideration but later on when
they reached for counseling they were not allowed to
participate on the ground that the petitioners are
falling under para teacher and having applied under
non-para category as such they are not entitled for
counseling under non-para category.
43. It is stated that thereafter, several rounds of
counseling were held in all the districts and several
candidates were called for counseling and were given
appointment but the petitioners were left.
44. It further appears from the pleading available
on record that due to several irregularities,
process, several writ applications were filed before
this Court and two of the writ petitions, which are of
relevance to adjudicate the lis are being W.P.(S) No.

68
19 of 2016 with W.P.(S.) no. 32 of 2016 and other
analogous cases which were taken up together and
the learned Single Judge after hearing learned
counsel for the parties allowed the writ petitions vide
judgment dated 02.02.2017 directing the
respondents-authorities to make appointment
according to merit of the candidates on all unfilled
advertised vacancies by conducting one time
counseling.
45. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of
the judgment is quoted as under:
“19. In the light of the foregoing discussions, the

following directions are issued
(i) A public notice, indicating that counselling for all
unfilled advertised vacancies in all the districts shall be
conducted in the 3/4" week of March, 2017. It shall be
published in two daily newspapers on or before
23.02.2017. The public notice shall also indicate that no
further opportunity to produce original certificate would
be granted to the candidates. The counselling may
continue for more than one day.
(ii) An exercise to short-list eligible candidates viz-a-viz
vacancy-position in each category shall be undertaken
and candidates twice the number of total vacancies,
merit-wise, after the last selected candidate shall be put
on the web-site, preferably by the 3 week of March,
2017. However, it may not be necessary to call all short
listed candidates for counselling.
(iii) The name of candidates falling under the "zone of
consideration as indicated in clause (ii) above shall be
put on the web-site, atleast one week prior to the date of
counselling.
(iv)The entire exercise must be concluded by 31.03.2017.
69
20. It is further made clear that there shall be only one

counselling in all the districts of the State and
counselling shall be conducted simultaneously in all the
districts. The candidates who were earlier called for
counselling shall not be permitted to participate in the
counselling except, those permitted by an order of the
Court.”
46. Against order dated 02.02.2017 passed in W.P.
(S) No. 19 of 2016 and analogous cases, the State
preferred intra-court appeal being LPA No. 168 of
2017, which was dismissed vide order dated
11.05.2018 affirming the order passed by learned
Single Judge. For ready reference, paragraph 7 and
8 of the judgment is quoted as under:
“7.Further, there are large number of vacancies still left,

viz. out of total number of advertised vacancies of
10,000, 3832 vacancies are still unfilled. Thus, no
prejudice will be caused to the appellant, if direction,
given in Paragraph 19 and 20 of order dated 2nd
February, 2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 19 of 2016, is
complied by the appellant State. On the contrary, it
appears that State is given one more chance to perform
its duties.
8. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to take
any other view than what has been taken by the learned
Single Judge while deciding the writ petition vide order
dated 2nd February, 2017. There is no substance in this
Letters Patent Appeal and same is, hereby, dismissed.
We, therefore, direct the Secretary, School
Education and Literacy Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand to complete the exercise of
counselling as directed by the learned Single Judge in
Paragraph 19 and 20, as aforesaid, as early as possible
and practicable, and in no case later than a period of
four months from today.”
70
47. It further appears the learned Co-ordinate
Division Bench, on the same date i.e., on 11.05.2018
allowed the Letters Patent Appeals being L.P.A. no.
186 of 2017 with L.P.A. no. 199 of 2017 filed by the
writ petitioners-appellants against the judgment
dated 02.03.2017 passed in W.P.(S.) No. 6031 of
2015 and W.P. (S) No. 173 of 2016, wherein issue
was that though the petitioners have not applied
under reserved category they were compelled to be
treated as reserved category candidates on the
ground that writ petitioners since were working as
para-teachers they must apply and they shall be
deemed to have applied under reserved category
meant for para teachers.
48. The Co-ordinate Division Bench while allowing
the intra-court appeal directed the Respondents-
petitioners as early as possible so that it can be
completed within a period of four months from today
and further their candidature shall be considered as
eligibility criteria for age etc. For ready reference, the
relevant paragraph 8 and 9 of the judgment is
quoted as under:
71
“8.As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and

reasons, we, hereby, quash and set aside the common
judgment and order dated 2nd March, 2017, passed by
the learned Single Judge, in W.P.(S) No. 6031 of 2015
and W.P.(S) No. 173 of 2016.
9. We, hereby, direct the respondent State to initiate the
counselling of the original petitioners, as early as
possible and practicable, so that it can be completed
within a period of four months from today.
These appellants shall approach or remain present
before the Dy. Commissioner of the concerned District, as
early as possible and practicable, within a period of 12
weeks from today and if they are approaching the Dy.
Commissioner of the concerned district, within a further
period of two months thereafter, the counselling exercise
will be completed and their candidature -6- shall be
considered as per Non-Para Teacher category vacancies
subject to fulfilling the conditions by these appellants
regarding eligibility criteria for age etc.”
49. It further requires to refer herein the order
passed by Co-ordinate Division Bench in LPA No.
172 of 2018, preferred by writ petitioners-appellants
which was allowed vide order dated 23.07.2018. The
said intra-court appeal was preferred against order
passed in W.P. (S) No. 178 of 2016 whereby these
appellants though have not applied under reserved
category were compelled to be treated as reserved
category candidates. For ready reference, the
relevant paragraph of the judgment passed in LPA
No. 172 of 2018 is quoted as under:
“12. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and

reasons, we, hereby, quash and set aside the judgment
and order dated 1st February, 2018, passed by the
72
learned Single Judge, in W.P.(S) No. 178 of 2016.

13. We, hereby, direct the respondent State to initiate the
counselling of the original petitioners, as early as
possible and practicable, so that it can be completed
within a period of four months from today. These
appellants shall approach or remain present before the
Dy. Commissioner of the concerned District, as early as
possible and practicable, within a period of 12 weeks
from today and if they are approaching the Dy.
Commissioner of the concerned district, within a further
period of two months thereafter, the counselling exercise
will be completed and their candidature shall be
considered as per Non-Para Teacher category vacancies
subject to fulfilling the conditions by these appellants
regarding eligibility criteria for age etc.”
50. It appears that some aggrieved para-teachers
again approached this Court by filing series of writ
petitions which were clubbed together being W.P. (S)
No. 2142 of 2019 and analogous cases, which was
disposed of directing the respondents-State to
include the name of those petitioners also in the
counseling process for selection of Assistant
Teachers. For ready reference, the relevant portion of
order passed by learned Single Judge is quoted as
under:
“2.In view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Division

Bench in L.P.A. No. 186 of 2017, this Court feels that not
only the appellants of the said L.P.A. but all the writ
petitioners also need to be given a chance in the
counselling processes. This is for the reason that the
issue, which was in dispute, has now been settled and
the ambiguity as to whether a Para Teacher can apply
under Non-Para Teacher category has been set at rest by
the Hon’ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 186 of 2017.
73
3. Further, I find that several similar orders have been

passed in L.P.A. Nos. 347 of 2018, 433 of 2018 etc. All
the writ petitioners are governed by the principle which
has been laid down in the judgment passed in the
aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals. Thus, this Court feels
that all these writ petitioners are entitled to get the
similar benefit.
4. Thus, I direct the State to include the name of all
these writ petitioners also in the counselling process for
selection of Assistant Teachers.
5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, these
entire writ applications stands allowed in terms of the
order passed in L.P.A. Nos. 186 of 2017, 347 of 2018
and 433 of 2018.”
51. The case of the petitioners herein is that the
petitioners, admittedly working as para-teachers,
applied under the non-para category fulfilling all the
eligibility critera of non-para category, but were
restrained from participating in counseling, as such
common prayer was made for direction upon the
respondents to consider their candidature in their
respective categories i.e. para and non-para category,
for the districts for which they have applied against
the vacant seats of Intermediate Trained Teachers.
The learned Single Judge after taking into
consideration the argument advanced by learned
counsel for the parties, allowed the writ petition.
Relevant portion of judgment is quoted as under:
“18. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations,

rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial
pronouncements, I hereby direct the respondents to
74
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,
theDeputy 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 puttingthe 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 reasonswhatsoeveras the advertisement
for appointment of these teachers are of 2015 and the
aforesaid directions have beenissuedin peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case, which shall be not taken
as precedent.
20. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all
these writ petitions stand allowed.”
52. Aggrieved thereof, the respondents-State has
preferred intra-Court appeals, which were clubbed
together and are under challenge before this Court.
53. Learned counsel for the State-appellant by
referring to the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 19 of
2016 (affirmed in LPA No. 168 of 2017) has
submitted that in the order passed by learned Single

75
Judge being confirmed by learned Division Bench of
this Court, it has clearly been directed that there
shall be only one counseling in all the districts of the
State but the learned Single Judge has failed to
consider the direction as passed in W.P. (S) No. 19 of
2016.
Single Judge has further failed to consider that
learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016
(affirmed in LPA No. 168 of 2017) has clearly directed
that the candidates who were earlier called for
counseling shall not be permitted in the counseling
except those permitted by the order of the Court.
Single Judge ought to have considered that
resolution dated 02.05.2019 issued in pursuance of
the guidelines issued by this Court that the
candidates who were previously called for counseling
would not be invited for counseling.
56. This Court, on appreciation of rival
submissions advanced on behalf of parties, is of the
view that the impugned order passed by learned
Single Judge does not require interference on the
following grounds:
I. It is admitted fact that the Co-ordinate Single

76
Bench has passed order dated 02.02.2017 in
W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016 and analogous cases
wherein at paragraph 20 direction has been
given that there shall be only one counseling
holding therein that “It is further made clear
that there shall be only one counseling in all the
districts of the State …”.
II. The order dated 02.02.2017 passed in W.P.(S)
No. 19 of 2016 and analogous cases was
affirmed in intra-court appeal i.e., in L.P.A. No.
168 of 2017 showing no interference in the
order passed by learned Single Judge.
III. Further the issue of allowing the candidates
falling under para-teacher category to
participate in the process of selection under
non-para teacher category fell for consideration
before the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.
6031 of 2015 and analogous cases, which was
negated, against which the writ petitioners
preferred intra-court appeal being LPA 186 of
2017 with LPA 199 of 2017, which was allowed
vide order dated 11.05.2018 whereby the order
passed by learned Single Judge was quashed
and set aside and the respondents-State were
directed to initiate the counseling of the original

77
petitioners as early as possible, however, it was
held that candidature of the writ petitioners
shall be considered as per non-para category
teacher vacancies subject to fulfilling the
conditions by these appellants-writ petitioners
regarding eligibility criteria for age etc.
IV. One another intra-court appeal, beign L.P.A.
No. 172 of 2018, was preferred against order
dated 01.02.2018 passed in W.P. (S) No. 178 of
2016 whereby the writ petitioners though had
not applied under reserved category (para
category) but were compelled to be treated as
reserved category candidates. The learned Co-
ordinate Division Bench, taking into
consideration the fact that there is no rule,
regulation or Government Circular or
Government Policy that those candidates, who
are already working as Para Teachers, must
apply under the reserved category meant for
teachers and further there is no such
conditions attached with the public
advertisement in question that those
candidates who are working as Para Teachers
must apply for the reserved category seats
meant for Para-Teacher, quashed and set aside

78
the order passed by learned Single Judge.
It has further been held that it depends
upon the confidence of the candidates to apply
under category or not to apply under the
reserved category and there is no bar for such
candidates that they cannot apply under the
General Category which is meant for Non-Para
Teachers.
V. Thus, it appears from the order passed by
learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2016
that learned counsel for the petitioners
confined their argument only to the legality of
respondents‟ decision to stop the counseling
midway. The learned Single Judge in that
pretext has passed the order that there shall
only one counselling. Here the learned Single
Judge had not decided the issue of
consideration of candidature of para-teachers
under non-para teacher category, if they are
otherwise eligible. As a matter of fact, said
issue was decided by learned Co-ordinate
Division Bench in LPA 186 of 2017 with LPA
199 of 2017, which was allowed vide order
dated 11.05.2018 whereby the order passed by
learned Single Judge was quashed and set

79
aside and the respondents-State were directed
to initiate the counseling of the original
petitioners as early as possible, however, it was
held that candidature of the writ petitioners
shall be considered as per non-para category
teacher vacancies subject to fulfilling the
conditions by these appellants-writ petitioners
regarding eligibility criteria for age etc.
VI. This Court on consideration of the fact that the
issue of allowing para-teachers has already
been decided in LPA NO. 186 of 2017 with LPA
No. 199 of 2019 hence if in that circumstances
the learned Single Judge has passed order for
consideration of their candidature by allowing
the writ petitions to participate in the
counseling which according to our considering
view cannot be said to suffer from error.
VII. The learned Single Judge is correct and the
judicial discipline warrants that if the issue has
been decided by the higher Coram the same
binds the Court having the lesser Coram on the
principle of binding precedence.
Reference in this regard be made to the
judgment rendered in the case of Official
Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Ors., (2008)

80
10 SCC 1, wherein at paragraphs-84, 86 & 88
it has been held as under:
“84. In State of Bihar vs. Kalika Kuer, the Court

elaborately considered the principle of per incuriam and
held that the earlier judgment by a larger Bench cannot
be ignored by invoking the principle of per incuriam and
the only course open to the coordinate or smaller Bench
is to make a request for reference to the larger Bench.
86. In Central Board of Dwaoodi Bohra Community vs.
State of Maharashtra, the Constitution Bench interpreted
Article 141, referred to various earlier judgments
including Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs. Mumbai
Shramik Sangha and Pradip Chandra Parija vs. Pramod
Chandra Patnaik and held that "the law laid down in a
decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is
binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal
strength and it would be inappropriate if a Division
Bench of two Judges starts overruling the decisions of
Division Benches of three Judges. The Court further held
that such a practice would be detrimental not only to the
rule of discipline and the doctrine of binding precedents
but it will also lead to inconsistency in decisions on the
point of law; consistency and certainty in the
development of law and its contemporary status - both
would be immediate casualty (Central Board of Dawoodi
Bohra Community case, SCC p. 682, paras 12 & 10).
88. In U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh vs. Daya
Ram Saroj, the Court noted that by ignoring the earlier
decision of a coordinate Bench, a Division Bench of the
High Court directed that part-time tube-well operators
should be treated as permanent employees with same
service conditions as far as possible and observed: "26.
Judicial discipline is self-discipline. It is an inbuilt
mechanism in the system itself. Judicial discipline
demands that when the decision of a coordinate Bench
of the same High Court is brought to the notice of the
Bench, it is to be respected and is binding, subject of
course, to the right to take a different view or to doubt
the correctness of the decision and the permissible
course then open is to refer the question or the case to a
larger Bench. This is the minimum discipline and
81
decorum to be maintained by judicial fraternity."
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

82
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.
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.
58. With the aforesaid observations and directions,

83
these intra-court appeals fail and are dismissed.
59. In consequence of dismissal of intra-court
appeals, the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2049 of
2022 stands allowed.
60. Pending Interlocutory Applications stand
disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)

Alankar/-
A.F.R.

Display PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Display PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Rajbhasha and

Pakur, District Pakur, State Jharkhand.

12. Sadhan Chandra Mandal, aged about at 87 years,

21. Bhuban Rajak, aged about 46 years, son of Late

31. Sachida Nand Das, aged about 45 years, son of

Tammi Prassad Mahato, residen tof Kalyanpur, P.O.

P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand.

P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanabd, State Jharkhand.

Chandra Patel, resident of Muraidih Colony, P.O. Pochari

Bhola Mahato, resident of Jhagrahi, P.O. Jhagrahi, P.S.

Sukar Mahto, resident of Angarpathra Pathalkothi, P.S.

101. Suresh Rawani, aged about 38 years, son of

111. Santosh Bauri, aged about 48 years, son of Lakhi

Kinu Mahato, resident of Banderchua, P.O. Pargha, P.S.

132. Sudip Kumar Mandal, aged about 40 years, son of

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary,

P.S. and District Pakur, State Jharkhand.

P.O.&P.S. Ranchi, District Ranchi.

Lohardaga, P.O.& P.S. & District Lohardaga.

9. Vikash Kmar, aged about 39 years S/o Surendra

20. Md. Safiq Ansari, aged about 47 years S/o Late

Lakhan Paswan, resident of Giridih Road, Mahavir

Tatijharia, Dist. Hazaribagh.

Jharkhand, MDI Building, P.O.&P.S.Dhurwa, District

Sahibganj and District Sahibganj.

P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra, State Jharkhand.

Sri Badri Gope, resident of village Tonatand, P.O. and

30. Ram Kumar Yadav, aged about 37 years, son of Sri

Pyari Mahto, resident of village Dhodhi, P.O.Mandhniay,

P.S. Ranchi and District Ranchi.

Lohardaga, P.O., P.S. Lohardaga and District Lohardaga.

10. Yugeshwar Mahato, aged about 38 years son of

Koleshwar Mahto, resident of village Chhotki Punnu, P.O.

Alk Niranjan Pandey, Resident of village Banaso, P.O.

P.O Sila, P.S. Simariya, Distt. Chatra.

Barkatha, District Hazaribagh.

10. The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih,

Dumka District Dumka, State Jharkhand.

Sah, resident of Dhodhari, P.O. Ramla P.S. Godda, District

of Rambilas Singh, resident of Yogidih, P.O.Taradiha P.S.

Kulesh Mandal, resident of Ghatiyari, P.O. Ghatiyari, P.S.

40. Bipin Kumar, aged about 45 years son of Sri

Panchanan Sah, resident of Chainahab, P.O. Chainadhab,

Thakur Gangti, District Godda, State Jharkhand.

Education Establishment Committee, Pakur, P.O.& P.S. &

Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S. & Ramgarh, State Jharkhand

For the Respondents : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Adv

Ms. Tanya Singh, Adv

Mrs. Sarita Gupta, Adv

For the Intervener : Mr. Abhilsh Kumar, Adv

Order No.23/Dated 15th September,2023

order/judgment, as such they are heard together

and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. One writ petition, being W.P. (S) No. 2049 of

2022, is also listed along with these batch matters. It

appears from order dated 16.08.2022 passed in W.P.

(S) No. 2049 of 2022 that on the request made by

learned counsel for the parties that since similar

matters are pending before the Division Bench of

this Court in LPA No. 203 of 2022 and analogous