2026:JHHC:2999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2154 of 2020 --------- Anuj Kumar, aged about 40 years, son of Sri Ramnath Sah, resident of Village-Saraiya, P.O.-Chapari, P.S.-Bhawnathpur, District- Garhwa. ....Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, H.E.C., P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi; 2. Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, H.E.C., P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi; 3. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S.-Garhwa, District-Garhwa; 4. Deputy Development Commissioner, District Education Establishment Committee, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S.-Garhwa, District-Garhwa; 5. District Education Officer, District Education Establishment Committee, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S.-Garhwa, District-Garhwa; 6. District Superintendent of Education, Garhwa, Vikas Bhawan- B, First Floor, Room No.201, Collectorate Building, P.O. & P.S.- Garhwa, District-Garhwa; 7. Pravesh Kumar, son of Sri Ganesh Sahu, resident of Village- Khatin, P.O. & P.S.-Chhattarpur, District-Palamau. ....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, A.C. to G.P.-II --------- 12/Dated:-04.02.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs: (a) quashing/setting aside, with all consequences, the decision taken in the meeting dated 24.7.2019 (Annexure-10) of the District Education Establishment Committee, Garhwa to the effect of non-selecting the petitioner on the post of Primary Teacher for Class 1 to 5 (Inter Trained) under non-para category; (b) quashing/setting aside the decision taken in the meeting dated 24.7.2019 (Annexure-10) of the District Education Establishment Committee, Garhwa of making selection of the Respondent No.7-Pravesh Kumar and his consequent appointment made vide office order contained in memo no.1023/Garhwa dated 30.7.2019 (Annexure-11) issued under the signature of the District Superintendent of Education, Garhwa on the post of Primary Teacher for Class 1 to 5 (Inter Trained) under non-para category; 2026:JHHC:2999 2 (c) declaring that the petitioner is fit for consideration for selection and appointment on the post of Primary Teacher for Class 1 to 5 (Inter Trained) under non-para category in the selection process initiated vide Advertisement No.04/Garhwa/2015 (Annexure-2); (d) commanding upon the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for selection and consequently appoint him on the post of Primary Teacher for Class 1 to 5 (Inter Trained) under non-para category in the selection process initiated vide Advertisement No.04/Garhwa/2015 (Annexure-2). 3. The specific case of the petitioner is that though, he has obtained more marks than respondent No.7, but respondent No.7 has been appointed as Assistant Teacher in non-para category and the petitioner has been left out for the reasons best known to the respondents, though, he obtained 57.654 marks as against respondent No.7, who has secured 57.326 marks. 4. After filing of the counter affidavit, on the objection raised by the respondents on 03.07.2025, following order was passed: “1. In spite of several opportunities, learned counsel for the respondent-State could not demonstrate as to what is the difference between the respondent No.7 and the petitioner wherein a ground for rejection in case of the petitioner has been taken that as per the affidavit certain column was not there, however, after going through the affidavit of respondent No.7 and other candidates, it is crystal clear that there is no difference between those affidavits. 2. Further, after going through Annexure-8 at page 49, no difference can be demonstrated by the respondent counsel among the four candidates, the details of which have been mentioned therein. However, for the reasons best known to them which they are unable to demonstrate as to why the respondent No.7 has been appointed and the petitioner has been left out having more marks that is 57.65 instead of 57.32 which was secured by the respondent No.7. 3. List this case on 31.07.2025. 4. On that date, the respondent-State shall inform the Court about the existing vacancy with regard Primary Teacher (Intermediate Trained) for Class 1 to 5 under non-para category in any school and if there is no vacancy, how the petitioner will be compensated for the illegality committed by the respondents.” 5. On that date, since it was apparent that the ground of the respondents is not sustainable; rather it is just reverse in view of the fact that the ground of non-filing of affidavit does not apply to the petitioner as he had already filed the required column in the affidavit. Rather, it is respondent No.7 who did not disclose his 2026:JHHC:2999 3 grounds of obtaining D.P.E. 6. However, without disturbing the appointment of respondent No.7, this Court was of the view that if there are existing vacancies then whether the petitioner can be accommodated and for that very reason the respondent-State was directed to inform this Court about the existing vacancy with regard to Primary Teachers Intermediate Trained for class 1 to 5 under non-para category in any school. 7. Pursuant thereto; a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed wherein at para-16 they have stated that several seats are still vacant. Annexure-C has been annexed in support of that contention that the seats are vacant for which the petitioner is here before this Court. 8. Having regard to the specific assertion in paragraph 16 and Annexure-C and also in view of the fact that the petitioner was having more marks than respondent No.7, this Court directs the Respondent-State to ensure that the petitioner be issued the appointment letter being a successful candidate and is having more marks than respondent No.7 by doing all the formalities which are necessary for issuing the appointment letter. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) FEBRUARY 04, 2026 vikas/- uploaded 11.03.2026