2025:JHHC:28307 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3066 of 2019 -- Amit Kumar, aged about 33 years, son of Chunni Lal Mandal, resident of Village- Nistara Mal, P.O. Mal Rampur, P.S.- Pathargama, District - Godda. ....Petitioner Versus 1.State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District - Ranchi. 2.The Secretary, School Education & Literacy Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at MDI Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi 3 The Director Primary Education, School Education & Literacy Development Department. Government of Jharkhand, having its office at MDI Building, Dhurwa, P.O. &P.S.- Dhurwa, District - Ranchi 4.The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. & District- Pakur. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. & District- Pakur. 6. Chhote Lal Sao, son of Jageshwar Sao, resident of Betlu, P.O.- Kandaber, P.S.- Keredari, District - Hazaribagh. 7 Anju Gupta, wife of Mahadeo Sao resident of Kesura, P.O.-Roka, P.S. Muffasil, District - Hazaribagh. ......Respondents -- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. K. Jha, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 5 : Mr. Sushant Kumar, A.C to S.C.-II -- 12/15.09.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner praying for setting aside the result of Intermediate Trained Non-Plan/Non-Para Teachers published by the District Establishment Committee, Pakur to the extent that the respondents have overlooked the claim of the Petitioner, though he has obtained more marks than that of respondent nos. 6 & 7. Petitioner has also prayed for restraining the respondents from allowing the respondent nos. 6 & 7 to join 2025:JHHC:28307 2 on the appointed post during pendency of the writ application. 3. From the prayer of the writ petition, it appears that the appointment was made prior to filing of the writ application. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as per the Appointment Rules, the petitioner obtained 60.95% marks; whereas the Respondent no. 6 had obtained 57.41% and the Respondent No. 7 had obtained 51.62% marks; however, the respondent authorities have invited the Respondents Nos. 6 & 7 for counselling and they have not called the petitioner for counselling. The Petitioner has highlighted the issue in his representation dated 6.6.2019. Learned Counsel further submits that the action of the respondents in overlooking the claim of the petitioner and at the same time inviting the Respondents No. 6 & 7 for counselling is discriminatory in nature and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondents relying upon the counter affidavit submits that pursuant to the orders passed in L.P.A. No. 175 of 2017, 199 of 2017 and 186 of 2017 and various similar situated cases, the School, Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand issued the following notifications; whereby directions were given for initiating the counselling of teachers as a last chance on vacant seats for class 1-5 and 6-8 (Inter Trained & Graduate Trained respectively)-  Government Notification 663 dated 02.05.2019,  Letter No.665 dated 02.05.2019,  General information dated 02.05.2019 by Director, Primary Education  Government resolution Contained in memo no. 662 dated 02.05.2019. 2025:JHHC:28307 3 As per Para 4 of the general information of Director, Primary Education contained in Annexure-A2, the candidate, who applied earlier in a particular category, will be final and no new/fresh application shall be invited. 6. He further submits that in light of the aforementioned Government resolutions and notifications, the District Education Establishment Committee, Pakur called a meeting on 30.05.2019 and passed a resolution to the effect that in course of compliance of the judicial pronouncement of the High Court, the School Education and Literacy Department Jharkhand, Ranchi; one time counselling be initiated as a last chance for appointment on the vacant posts after reckoning the erstwhile appointment against the advertised post. The details of vacant post of Inter Trained Teachers and Graduate Trained Teachers were also elaborated in the proceedings dated 30.05.2019. Further, as per the order of the High Court, the provisional merit list with two times the number of candidates than the of vacant posts was published. He lastly submits that from records it is evident that non-consideration of the candidature of the Petitioner was only because he obtained less marks in TET Examination. It has been wrongly alleged by the petitioner that the Respondent no. 6 and 7 have been wrongly selected on merit overlooking the candidature of the petitioner. 7. From record, it appears that the provisional merit list was uploaded on the official website i.e. www.pakur.nic.in. after being approved by Deputy Commissioner, Pakur. Accordingly, District Superintendent of Education, Pakur issued letter no. 691 dated 30.05.2019 informing therein that the counselling shall be done on 03.06.2019 at Middle School Dhanushpuja, Pakur from 8 am till the availability of last eligible candidate. 2025:JHHC:28307 4 After completion of the counselling, the District Education Committee, Pakur prepared the final merit list on 10.07.2019 as per which 77 Intermediate Trained Teachers and 19 Graduate Trained Teachers were selected. The District Education Establishment Committee stipulated the following cut-off marks for Para and Non-Para category- Non Para Category General BC SC 53.62 57.24 49.70 Para Category General BC MBC SC 59.32 59.95 59.32 53.57 Further, the cut off marks in TET examination had also been stipulated as 90 out of 150 in General Category. 8. The record further reveals that the petitioner had applied for Non-Para Teacher in BC Category and his score in the TET examination was 80 out of 150 and there was no vacancy/post in Non-Para BC category and therefore the candidature of the petitioner like others was considered in General Category only. The petitioner was however not called for counselling as he had lesser marks in TET examination. 9. The record further transpires that the respondent no. 6 and 7 namely Chotelal Saw and Anju Gupta have been selected on account of not only fulfilling the stipulated cut off marks in their respective categories but also the cut off marks specified in the TET examination. However, the petitioner although qualified in the category cut off but failed to cross the TET cut off. For brevity, tabulated chart of cut off marks is extracted herein below: 2025:JHHC:28307 5 Sl. No. Status Name Marks Category Category cut-off TET Marks TET Cut-off 1. Petitioner Amit Kumar 60.95 Non-para BC 62.90 80 90/150 (60%) 2. Respondent No. 06 Chotelal Saw 57.41 Non-para MBC 57.24 97 3. Respondent No. 07 Anju Gupta 51.62 Non-para General (Female) 40.99 92 10. Thus, it is evident that non-consideration of the candidature of the Petitioner was only because he obtained less marks in TET Examination. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid admitted facts, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ application stands dismissed. 12. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 15th September, 2025 jk