JUDGMENT :

S.N. Pathak, J.

In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing and heard at length. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding which has been held through Video Conferencing and there is no complaint in respect to audio and video clarity and quality and after hearing at length, the matter is being disposed of finally.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to appoint him in view of order dated 02.02.2017, passed in W.P.(S) No. 19 of 2016 and the order dated 22.05.2019, passed in W.P.(S) No. 2450 of 2019, as he has already appeared for counseling on 03.06.2019 for appointment of Inter-Trained Teacher and in spite of vacancies lying vacant, appointment letter is not being issued in his favour though similarly situated persons have already been given appointment letters.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Facts of the case in brief as has been delineated in the writ petition is that petitioner is Diploma in Primary Education from Indira Gandhi National Open University and is discharging his duties as a Para-Teacher for last fifteen years without any complaint from any corner. Petitioner has also passed Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET) for Class-IV conducted by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. He is having eligibility for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher.

5. Pursuant to the letter bearing no. 1180, dated 29.05.2015, issued by the respondent no. 2 to initiate process for making appointment to the post of Inter/ Graduate Trained Teachers in almost all the districts of Jharkhand, the advertisements were issued by the concerned District Superintendent of Education. 50% of the seats were to be filled-up by the Para-teachers working in the government schools whereas 50% seats were to be filled up from non-para candidates. Petitioner being eligible, applied for his appointment in different districts. When counseling was suddenly stopped, aggrieved persons and the petitioner filed different writ petitions and vide order dated 02.02.2017, passed in W.P.(S) No. 19 of 2016 and the order dated 22.05.2019, passed in W.P.(S) No. 2450 of 2019, direction was passed to continue counseling process for appointment against the remaining advertised vacancies. State also moved in Letters Patent Appeal No. 168 of 2017 which was decided on 11.05.2018. Thereafter, the State issued one Resolution vide Memo No. 662, dated 02.05.2019 with regards to initiation of selection process once again. Thereafter, the merit list was uploaded on the website for counseling and petitioner's name also finds place in the said merit list. Petitioner appeared in the counseling process and duly submitted entire required certificates but his name does not find place in the final selection list and has not been issued appointment letter. Petitioner has been orally replied by the office of the District Superintendent of Education that merely counseling does not give right for appointment.

6. Mr. Radha Krishna Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner throwing challenge to the action of the respondents in denying appointment to the petitioner argues that the respondents have acted in a very whimsical manner and only because petitioner had knocked door of this Court, has been denied appointment though was allowed to appear in counseling in order to show respect and compliance of order and direction of this Court. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner had appeared in counseling process in the district of Chatra where out of 24 vacant seats for male candidates, counseling of 10 candidates including the petitioner was done and only 5 have been selected and 19 seats are still lying vacant under female quota. Learned counsel further argues that against the 19 female seats, counseling of 13 candidates was done, out of which only 6 candidates have been selected and as such, 13 seats are still lying vacant. Learned coun