IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S) No. 723 of 2014 with W.P(S) No. 756 of 2014 With W.P(S) No. 778 of 2014 ----- Vikash Vishwakarma @ Vikash Kumar Vishwakarma, son of Shri Bachhu Lal Vishwakarma, R/o village Bank Road, Mohanpur, PO and Ps Mohanpur, Distt. West Singhbhum, Jharkhand … Petitioner(s) [In W.P(S) No. 723 of 2014] Sushil Kandulna, son of late Harish Kandulna, R/o village Urkiya, PO Urkiya, PS Manoharpur, Distt. West Singhbum, Jharkhand … Petitioner(s) [In W.P(S) No. 756 of 2014] Diwakar Mahto, Son of late Rajnikant Mahto, R/o village Urkiya PO Urkiya, PS Manoharpur, Distt. West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. … Petitioner(s) [In W.P(S) No. 778 of 2014] Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa 3.The Jharkhand Education Project Officer, Amlatola Chaibasa, West Singhbhum 4. The District Superintendent of Education cum District Program Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa 5.The Block Development Officer cum Chairman Block Education Committee, Manoharpur, PO and PS Manoharpur, West Singhbhum. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Manoharpur South, PO and PS Manoharpur, District West Singhbhum 7.The Area Education Officer, Manoharpur, PO and PS Manoharpur, District West Singhbhum. … Respondent(s) (In all cases) CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Kr.Yadav, Sr. SC-1; Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to SC-I ...... 05 /16.01.2025: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that reference be made to the order dated 15.1.2024 passed in these three cases. The petitioners were dismissed from service on the ground of absenteeism. The absenteeism was only for two days. The petitioners had withdrawn the salary. The respondents plea was that there was misappropriation of government’s money. -1- Case of these petitioners was argued on 15.1.2024 in which the State was also heard. In paragraph no.5 of the said order the learned Single Judge was pleased not to interfere with the order. Paragraph no. 5 of the order dated 15.1.2024 is quoted hereinbelow: “5. In view of the specific averments in the counter-affidavit and in view of the fair submission of the learned counsel for the respondents-State which has not been denied by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. However, since it has been brought to the notice by the petitioners that no punishment was inflicted against the Principal of the school and has been left scot-free, let the respondents file a specific affidavit, if the Principal was also involved in the said case and if he was similarly situated to that of the petitioners, why the discriminatory approach was adopted.” . From perusal of paragraph No.5 along with earlier paragraphs of the said order it is clear that the learned Single Judge did not interfere with the punishment order of dismissal. Only for a limited purpose indicated in sub- para of para-5, these petitions were kept pending. In these writ petitions, the petitioners had prayed to set-aside the order of punishment. Order dated 15.1.2024 reveals that the learned Single Judge was not inclined to interfere in the matter, thus nothing remains to be decided in this writ petition so far as the dismissal of these petitioners are concerned. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents assures that equal treatment shall be extended to the Headmasters also, if they are found in same pedestal to that of the petitioners. Considering his assurance, I find that there is no useful purpose will be served to keep this matter pending. In view of order dated 15.1.2024 these writ petitions stand dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) KNR/- -2-