The court emphasized adherence to judicial precedents, directing authorities to accommodate eligible candidates in the counseling process based on merit, ensuring fair treatment and timely compliance.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Shankar, J.

Since the issues involved in all the writ petitions are similar, the same are being taken up and disposed of by this common order with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners, who are at present para teachers, have filed the present writ petitions primarily for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to accommodate them in the counselling process to be conducted for the post of Assistant Teacher in the light of judgment dated 16.02.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2378 of 2019 (Paras Nath Mandal Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases in respective districts under non-para category for remaining vacancies of Intermediate Trained Teachers (Class I to V) and if the petitioners are found eligible, to be suitably appointed as the petitioners of W.P.(S) Nos. 1333 of 2022, 6349 of 2023 and 1542 of 2022 have already applied against the vacancies in different districts in year 2015 under para category whereas the petitioners of W.P.(S) Nos. 1135 of 2022 and 3539 of 2019 being para teachers have applied under non-para category. Moreover, the candidates having lesser marks than the petitioners under non-para category have been selected in the merit list and allowed to participate in the counselling.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner of 3539 of 2019, on instruction, submits that the petitioner has obtained more marks than the last selected candidate under non-para category in the merit list.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners jointly submit that similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2378 of 2019 [Paras Nath Mandal Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.] and other analogous cases, which were allowed vide order dated 16.02.2022 with following directions :

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

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

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

5. The State of Jharkhand, however, preferred L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 [The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Paras Nath Mandal] and other analogous cases challenging the order dated 16.02.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2378 of 2019 and other analogous cases, which were dismissed by learned Division Bench vide order dated 15.09.2023 with following direction to the State of Jharkhand :

“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 re