- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parries. These Letters Patent Appeals are decided by this common order because of the reason that common questions of fact and law are involved as well as in view of the fact that two sets of judgements running contrary to each other are under challenge in these matters.
(2.) An advertisement was issued on 28th August, 2002 for selection and offering appointment on the post of Primary School Teacher and total number of posts offered were 9223. All the petitioners are some of the aspirant for the job, applied for the post and they were permitted to appear in the written examination and thereafter a select list was prepared wherein names of all the petitioners are finding place. However, even after publishing of select list in the year 2003, the petitioners were not given appointment, and, therefore, petitioners approached this Court by filing various writ petitions. Three sets of writ petitions were decided by three different orders but of the same date i.e., 14.07.2011 which were decided by common judgement delivered in W.P.(S) No. 2102 of 2008 in the case of Sur Singh Hasda Vs. State of Jharkhand & others along with connected writ petitions. Another bunch of writ petitions were decided along with W.P.(S) No. 4322 of 2010 in the case of Kunti Birua Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others and third set of writ petitions were decided by another Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5090 of 2008 and connected writ petitions having title Majhi Jonko Vs. State of Jharkhand & others. These three sets of judgements were passed for the candidates who claimed that they have been selected in due process of selection as teacher for 'Ho' language. The number of these candidates were 18(sic) who have not been offered appointment even after selection.
(3.) Before learned Single Judge it has been argued that the petitioners have been denied appointment on the ground that they did not possess the training in 'H(sic) subject by duly recognized institution namely National Council for Teachers' Education (in short NCTE). The State's contention was that the petitioners lack basic requirement i.e., training from Government institution, therefore, petitioners are not entitled to appointment.;