2025:JHHC:28089 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.7630 of 2017 ------- Diwakar Prasad Mahto, S/o Sri Lakhan Mahto R/o + village. Koeripara, P.O. + P.S. Barharwa, Dist.-Sahibganj, Jharkhand. ...… Petitioner Versus (1) The State Of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi Project Bhawan Dhurwa, P.O. + P.S. Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi. (2) The Director Secondary Education, H.R.D. Government of Jharkhand Ranchi, Project Bhawan Dhurwa, P.O. + P.S. Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi. (3) The Regional Director of Education, Santhalpragana Division Dumka, P.O & P.S. Dumka, Dist.- Dumka. (4) The Deputy Commissioner Sahibganj, P.O. + P.S. Sahibganj. & Dist. (5) The District Education Officer Sahibganj, P.O. + P.S. & Dist. Sahibganj. .….Respondent ------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Din Dayal Saha, Adv. For the Res. State : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, G.A.I ------- CAV On:- 09.09.2025 Pronounced on:- 11/09/2025 The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking reinstatement/reappointment in service along with all consequential benefits on the ground that his termination was arbitrary and discriminatory, and also violating the principles of natural justice. He further seeks quashing of Memo Nos. 3773-3880 dated 27.07.1993 and 1398/P dated 07.12.1993. 2. It appears from records that the petitioner was appointed on 13.11.1987 as peon in the District- 2025:JHHC:28089 2 Sahibganj on the vacant sanctioned post by recommendation of application by Headmistress with consent of the D.C. Sahibganj, Thereafter, the District Education Officer Sahibganj issued his appointment letter vide memo no.3528-31 dated 13.11.1987. Subsequently, the District Education Officer Sahibganj terminated the Petitioner along with 30 other assistants/peons vide office order contained in memo no. 3773-3880 dated 27.07.1993. Thereafter, the Director of Education Bihar, Patna by his order contained in memo no. 1398/Patna dated 07.12.1993 cancelled the appointment. 3. The order of termination dated 27.07.1993 was challenged by filing C.W.J.C no. 894/94 which was ultimately withdrawn on 1995 itself to seek remedy with the appropriate authorities. On 05.01.2000, the petitioner and others challenged the said order of the termination by filing CWJC no. 7106 of 98 and this Court disposed with direction on 05.01.2000. Thereafter, LPA no. 03 of 2006 preferred and which was disposed with direction on 17.05.2006. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that his termination was based on charges identical to those faced by Salim Ansari @ Md. Salim, Sadanand Thakur, 2025:JHHC:28089 3 and Uma Shankar Singh, however, all of them were reinstated. It has been next contended that the petitioner was discriminated despite having served continuously as a regular employee since 1987. The petitioner has relied on the judgment dated 14.07.2005 passed in L.P.A. No. 397/03 (State of Jharkhand & Others vs. Sadanand Thakur & Others), claiming parity with the reinstated employees. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent relies on its counter affidavit and submits that as resolution no. 1918 dated 28.01.1976 and circular no. 16440 dated 03.12.1980 provision was made for appointment of Class-III employees, other than the post which was to be filled up by Public Service Commission, advertisement was to be published for appointment of Class-III employee and on receipt of application merit list was to be prepared by a committee at Division Level and on recommendation of name of the candidates by the committee, appointment on class-III posts was to be made by the Regional Deputy Director of Education in the Division on the basis of merit/vacancy and roaster. 6. It has been next contended that as per clause- 7 of the Education Clerical Service Cadre Appointment, Promotion and Transfer Rules; appointment of Class-III staffs of Divisional cadre on temporary or permanent 2025:JHHC:28089 4 basis other than the post which was to be filled up by the Public Service Commission; the Regional Deputy Director of Education was/is the competent authority and the Additional Director of Education had/has no power/jurisdiction to appoint Class-III employee of Divisional Cadre. 7. It has also been contended that as per the provisions, an advertisement was to be published in the local newspaper for appointment on Class-III/Class-IV post by the competent authority with prior approval of the competent authority, but without publication of advertisement and without preparing merit list and without recommendation of the competent selection committee, the petitioner and 30 other candidates were wrongly and illegally appointed by the then District Education Officer, Sahibganj namely Alim Zang Khan, vide memo no. 3165-67 dated 04.01.1989 (Annexure-1). It has specifically been asserted that there is no provision to advertise the post on the Notice board. 8. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties it prima-facie appears that the procedure of appointment was not followed in any manner. From records it further transpires that the petitioner, along with other similarly terminated employees, had earlier approached this Court via C.W.J.C. No. 395/94, which was dismissed on 2025:JHHC:28089 5 06.02.1995. The subsequent L.P.A. No. 119/95 and S.L.P. (Civil) No. 25352/95 were also dismissed by the Division Bench and the Hon’ble Supreme Court respectively. However, the Apex Court, while dismissing the S.L.P., observed that the petitioner may apply for future appointments with age relaxation, but did not grant reinstatement. Thus, it can be safely inferred that this application is barred by the principle of res judicata, as the claim has already been adjudicated up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It has been specifically contended by the State respondents that the judgment dated 14.07.2005 in L.P.A. No. 397/03 was case-specific and explicitly stated not to be treated as precedent. 9. As stated hereinabove, as per Resolution No. 1918 dated 28.01.1976 and Circular No. 16440 dated 03.12.1980, appointments to Class-III posts (excluding those under the purview of the Public Service Commission) were to be made through a transparent process involving public advertisement in local newspapers, preparation of a merit list by a Divisional Level Committee, and final appointment by the Regional Deputy Director of Education based on merit, vacancy, and roster. 2025:JHHC:28089 6 Further, Clause 7 of the Education Clerical Service Cadre Rules clearly designates the Regional Deputy Director of Education as the sole competent authority for such appointments. The Additional Director of Education has no jurisdiction in this regard. However, contrary to these provisions, the petitioner and 30 others were appointed by the then District Education Officer, Sahibganj, Shri Alim Zang Khan, vide Memo No. 3165-67 dated 04.01.1989, without any advertisement, merit list, or recommendation from the competent committee. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that such appointments were made in violation of the prescribed procedure and are therefore irregular and unauthorized. 10. At the cost of repetition, the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement has already been conclusively adjudicated by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The principle of res judicata squarely applies. The reliance of the petitioner on L.P.A. No. 397/03 is misplaced, as the judgment therein was expressly limited to the peculiar facts of that case and not intended to serve as precedent. 11. In view of the above, the prayer for reinstatement/reappointment is hereby rejected. The 2025:JHHC:28089 7 prayer for quashing Memo Nos. 3773-3880 dated 27.07.1993 and 1398/P dated 07.12.1993 is also rejected. However, the petitioner’s long-standing service and the fact that he had worked until termination may entitle him to applicable remuneration for the period, he actually rendered service subject to verification by the competent authority. 12. Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to approach the competent authority by filing a detailed representation for his claim of remuneration giving the period of his work along with supporting documents within a period of 4 weeks from today. If the aforesaid representation/application is preferred within the aforesaid stipulated period; the respondent-authorities are directed to compute and disburse the salary/wages to the petitioner for the period of actual service rendered, subject to verification by the competent authority, within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. 13. With the aforesaid direction and observation, the same is hereby disposed of. Pending I.As., if any, also closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Fahim/- Dated:-11/09/2025 AFR/NAFR