2025:JHHC:23730 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S). No. 1240 of 2015 ------- 1. Anju Ekka, d/o. Policarp Ekka, resident of College Road, Barwa Toli, P.O. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga, Jharkhand. 2. Rakesh Kumar Mishra, s/o. Shri Indradeo Mishra, residing at Bada Jamda, P.O. & P.S. Bada Jamda, District West Singhbum. 3. Leena Topno, d/o. Man Masih Topno, residing at village Chiria, P.O. Chiria, P.S. Manoharpur, District West Singhbhum. 4. Shila Kumari Gope, d/o. Surendra Nath Gope, residing at village Maysara, P.O. Maysara, P.S. Ichagarh, District Saraikella-Kharsawan. 5. Manoj Kumar, s/o. late Permanand Das, residing at C/o. Sri A.C. Roy, Roy Villa, Tungri, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Chaibasa, District Singhbhum West. ……….. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of HRD (Primary Education), Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. The Director, Primary Education-cum-Joint Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. ……….. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2131 of 2015 ------ Seema Kumari, d/o. S.B.P. Singh & W/o. Ajit Kumar, resident of No. 47/2/1, Road No. 16, Adityapur, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, District Saraikela-Kharsawan, Jharkhand. ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of HRD (Primary Education), Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. The Director, Primary Education-cum-Joint Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. ……….. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioners : Mr. Neil Abhijeet Toppo, Advocate For the Resp. : Mr. Shubham Mishra, AC to SC(M)-II Mr. Anis Kumar Mishra, AC to Sr.SC-I ---- 2025:JHHC:23730 2 09/ 14.08.2025 Since the issue involved in the both the writ applications are same and similar, they have been heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. In both these writ applications a common prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 10.09.2013 as contained in memo No. 561 (Vidhi), dated 13.09.2013, issued by the 1st respondent rejecting the representation of the petitioners which has been filed in the light of order passed in W.P.(S). No. 7474 of 2012 and W.P.(S). No. 5866 of 2005, without enquiry and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and also refused to consider the cases of petitioner as held by the Full Bench of this Court in W.P.(S). No. 4259 of 2005, where a direction was made that the candidates who have completed the B.Ed. Course and waiting for examination prior to the advertisement; and also passed and got selected by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (for short ‘JPSC’) are entitled for appointment to the post of Teacher. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention of the Court towards para-33 of the Full Bench Judgment in the case of Md. Sajjad Ali Vs. the State of Jharkhand [W.P.(S). No. 4259 of 2005] and other analogous cases1, which reads as under: “33. For the reasons aforesaid, these writ petitions are allowed. It is held that all the petitioners are eligible for being appointed as teachers and the petitioners, who have already selected for appointment in the examination held by the JPSC, are entitled to be treated equally at par with other selected candidates. It is, hereby, directed that the petitioners to whom appointment letters have not been issued on the abovesaid objection are entitled to get appointment letters, if there is no other legal impediment. The petitioners, who were given the appointment letters, are entitled to join their respective posts. The respondents are directed to do the needful to give effect of this decision, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases has vehemently submitted that there is highhandedness of the respondents and the observations of Full Bench have not been taken care of. Previously also, the petitioners came before this Court but they were relegated to the competent authority to reconsider their cases. 1 2008 (4) J.L.J.R. 184 2025:JHHC:23730 3 However, again the impugned order has been passed wherein it has been indicated that no evidence has been brought to support the claim of the petitioners that they have completed teachers’ training prior to issuance of advertisement; as such, both the writ petitions may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to give appointment to these petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioners have appeared in the written examination conducted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission for appointment of teachers in the Primary School, whose result was published on 14.11.2003 and the petitioners were recommended for appointment. However, the petitioners had not passed the Teachers’ Training Examination till the date of publication of the result of Teachers Recruitment Examination by the JPSC. The petitioners had passed the B.Ed. Examination after publication of result and as such, they were not offered appointment by the concerned District Superintendent of Education since they did not fulfil the eligibility criteria with respect to Teachers’ Training qualification. 6. Learned counsel further submits that earlier the petitioners had also moved before this Court and this Court was pleased to dispose of the said writ applications by giving liberty to the petitioners to file fresh representation ventilating their grievances. Consequently, the petitioners filed representations before the respondents, which was duly considered and vide order dated 10.09.2013, the claim of the petitioners had been rejected. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that the respondent-authority while rejecting the representations of the petitioners has held that the claimants have not annexed any evidence as to whether they have completed Teachers’ Training prior to the publication of Advertisement. 8. On the one hand, the same is a factual dispute which has been raised by the respondents and in none of the writ petitions, the 2025:JHHC:23730 4 respective petitioners have given any sort of document in order to reject the aforesaid ground of the respondents. 9. There is another aspect of the matter that we are in the year 2025 and the entire process of recruitment pursuant to advertisement of 2002 is completed long before. Even after that, there are several rounds of advertisements published in the State for appointment of Teachers, as informed by learned counsel for the respondents and as such, now no relief can be granted to these petitioners, even otherwise. 10. Accordingly, both the writ applications stand dismissed. 11. Pending I.As., if any, stand closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Kunal