Jharkhand High Court
Jiwan Lakra vs 2 on 26 August, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:25439-DB
2023:JHHC:35811-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A No.503 of 2022
1. Jiwan Lakra, aged about 47 years, S/o Late Marsel Lakra, resident of
Village- Bitpi, P.O.- Balsota, P.S.-Bhandra, District- Lohardaga.
2. Milyani Kachhap, aged about 53 years, S/o Late Phulchand Kachhap,
resident of Village- Kota, P.O.-Balsota, P.S.-Bhandra, District- Lohardaga.
3. Dayanand Ram, aged about 50 years, S/o Late Toleya Ram, resident of
Village- Bhandra, P.O.-Bhandra, P.S.-Bhandra, District- Lohardaga.
4. Suresh Prasad Mahto, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Badri Mahto,
resident of Village-Guru, P.O.-Guru, P.S.-Ratu, District-Ranchi.
5. Churamani Mahto, aged about 52 years, S/o Late Mahesh Mahto, resident
of Village- Chipra, P.O.-Chipra, P.S-Ratu, District-Ranchi.
6. Khalik Ansari, aged about 55 years, S/o Jum Ali Ansari, resident of
Village-Chapatoli, P.O.- Bijulia, P.S -Ratu, District- Ranchi.
7. Jafar Ansari, aged about 56 years, S/o Late Maju Ansari, resident of
Village- Chapatoli, P.O.- Bijulia, P.S. Ratu, District- Ranchi.
8. Safura Khatun, aged about 56 years, D/o Maqbul Ansari, resident of
Village- Chapatoli, P.O.- Bijulia, P.S.- Ratu, District -Ranchi.
9. Satyanarayan Hazam, aged about 54 years, S/o Late Aklu Thakur,
resident of Village-Barsa, P.O.-Barsa, P.S.-Nagri, District- Ranchi.
10. Bisheshwar Prasad Mahto, aged about 54 years, S/o Late Ghuran
Mahto, resident of Village- Upardaha, P.O.- Saparom, P.S.- Nagri, District-
Ranchi.
11. Mokhtar Hussain, aged about 58 years, S/o Nabu Ansari, resident of
Village- Mathtoli, P.O.-Murma Nayasarai, P.S.- Nagri, District- Ranchi.
12. Md. Mustak Alam Ansari, aged about 59 years, S/o Shaukat Ali,
resident of Village-Bhonda, P.O.-Bijulia, P.S.-Ratu, District-Ranchi.
13. Zamir Hassan Ansari, aged about 56 years, S/o Ali Bakas Ansari,
resident of Village-Goke, P.O.- Beyasi, P.S.- Chanho, District- Ranchi.
14. Jesu Lakra, aged about 53 years, S/o Luta Lakra, resident of Village-
Sisai, P.O.-Beyasi, P.S.-Chanho, District-Ranchi.
15. Jura Oraon, aged about 59 years, S/o Bigla Oraon, resident of Village-
Patuk, P.O.- Sons, P.S.- Chanho, District- Ranchi.
16. Natha Oraon, aged about 59 years, S/o Viga Oraon, resident of Village-
Jariya, P.O. & P.S.- Bero, District-Ranchi.
17. Fagu Mahto, aged about 53 years, S/o Late Jagan Mahto, resident of
Village- Doriatoli, P.O.- Balalong, P.S.- Nagri, District- Ranchi.
2025:JHHC:25439-DB
2023:JHHC:35811-DB
18. Sachchida Mahto, aged about 55 years, S/o Shibu Mahto, resident of
Village-Tigra, P.O.-Guru, P.S.-Ratu, District- Ranchi.
19. Mahabir Mahto, aged about 53 years, S/o Ganesh Mahto, resident of
Village- Tigra, Tikratoli P.O.-Guru, P.S.-Ratu, District-Ranchi.
20. Laxmi Kumari, aged about 45 years, D/o Late Gaurilal Mahto, resident
of Village-Sonabad, P.O.-Ghatyali, P.S.-Pindrajora, District-Bokaro.
21. Pramod Mahto, aged about 52 years, S/o Late Ghananath Mahto,
resident of Village-Jhirkey, P.O.-Ulgadda, P.S.-Petarbar, District-Bokaro.
22. Gopal Mahto, aged about 53 years, S/o Late Panchu Mahto, resident of
Village-Putkadih, Karmatandtola, P.O.-Ulgadda, P.S.-Petarbar, District-
Bokaro.
23. Dhaneshwar Tudu, aged about 47 years, S/o Pusu Tudu, resident of
Village-Ulgadda, P.O.-Ulgadda, P.S.-Patabar, District-Bokaro.
24. Jasim Ansari, aged about 50 years, S/o Basarat Ansari, resident of
Sonabad, P.O. Ghatiyali, P.S.- Pindrajora, District-Bokaro.
25. Gaya Ram Manjhi, aged about 51 years, S/o Late Yadav Nath Manjhi,
resident of Vilage-Kusumtikri, P.O:-Ghatiyali, P.S.-Pindrajora, District-
Bokaro.
26. Golak Bihari Rajwar, aged about 54 years, S/o Late Kriti Chand Rajwar,
resident of Village-Chitami, P.O.-Ghatiyali, P.S.-Pindrajora, District-
Bokaro.
27. Dukhaharan Mallick, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Himanshu Mallick,
resident of Village-Bahadurpur, P.O.-Narayanpur, P.S.-Pindrajora,
District- Bokaro.
28. Santosh Kumar Mahato, aged about 52 years, S/o Late Jitulal Mahato,
resident of Village-Chitami, P.O.-Ghatiyali, P.S.-Pindrajora, District-
Bokaro.
29. Raj Kumar Ram, aged about 50 years, S/o Late Bhiku Ram, resident of
Village-Khudgada, P.O.- Swang, P.S.-Gomia, District-Bokaro.
30. Anil Kumar, aged about 48 years, S/o Jagdish Ram, resident of Village-
Khudgada Naibasti, P.O.-Sawang, P.S.-Gomia, District-Bokaro.
31. Kaushal Kishor Prajapati, aged about 53 years, S/o Late Bisheshwer
Prajapati, resident of Village-Khudgada, P.O.- Swang. P.S.- Gomia,
District- Bokaro.
32. Gopal Chandra Rajwar, aged about 52 years, S/o Chinibas Rajwar,
resident of Village-Chitami, P.O.-Ghatiyali, P.S.-Pindrajora, District-
Bokaro. ......Writ Petitioners/Appellants
Versus
2
2025:JHHC:25439-DB
2023:JHHC:35811-DB
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Human Resources
Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at
Project Building, PO-Dhurwa, Ps-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi
2. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Human Resources
Development Department, having its office at Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road,
PO-Phulwari Taluk, PS-Sachivalaya, District-Patna (Bihar)
3. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, PO-
Dhurwa, PS-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi
4. The Director, Mass Education, Government of Jharkhand, having its
office at Project Building, PO-Dhurwa, PS-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi
......... Respondents/Respondents
5. Bimla Devi, aged about 54 years, W/o Anand Kumar Srivastav, R/o Vill-
Patratoli, P.O.-Balalong, P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
6. Shital Sahu, aged about 51 years, S/o Late Mahabir Sahu, R/O Vill-
Archoro, P.O.-Barsa, P.S.-Nagri, District-Ranchi.
7. Uday Minj, aged about 55 years, S/o Dharm Prakash Minj, R/o Vill-
Raghunathpur, P.O.-Chanho, P.S.-Chanho, District-Ranchi.
8. Anand Kerketta, aged about 54 years, S/o Jakriyas Kerketta, R/o Vill-
Naudi, P.O.- Shilagai, P.S.-Chanho, Dist-Ranchi.
9. Ram Lakhan Mahto, aged about 50 years, S/o Late Jagdish Mahto, R/o
Vill-Gotiya, P.O.-Majgowapadma, P.S.-Barhi, District-Hazaribagh.
10. Shankar Kumar Tudu, aged about 51 years, S/o Radheshyam Manjhi,
R/o Vill-Patki, P.O.-Patki, P.S.-Petarbar, District-Bokaro.
11. Rohit Kumar Keshri, aged about 59 years, S/o Sukhdeo Sahu, R/o Vill-
Piska Nagri, P.O.-Piska Nagri, P.S.-Piska Nagri, District-Ranchi.
12. Mahabir Kumar Keshri, aged about 55 years, S/o Ganesh Sahu, R/o
Vill- Piska Nagri, P.O.-Piska Nagri, P.S. -Piska Nagri, District-Ranchi.
13. Anish Kumar Sahi, aged about 62 years, S/o Rajendra Sahi, R/o Vill-
Harhi, P.O.-Chinaro Puruyo, P.S.-Nagri, District-Ranchi.
14. Arbind Kumar Bhagat, aged about 54 years, S/o Madan Bhagat, R/o
Vill-Nagri, PO-Nagri, P.S-Nagri, District-Ranchi.
15. Rajiv Kumar, aged about 49 years, S/o Late Kanhai Ram Mahto, R/o
Vill-Osam, P.O.-Ordana, P.S-Petarbar, District-Bokaro.
16. Kalipad Rawani, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Shyam Rawani, R/O
Vill- Kusmatand, P.O.-Pargha, P.S.-Baliapur, District-Dhanbad.
17. Dol Gobind Mahto, aged about 51 years, S/o Late Khudi Ram Mahto,
R/O Vill-Singhiatand, P.S.-Baliapur, P.O.-Baliapur, District-Dhanbad.
3
2025:JHHC:25439-DB
2023:JHHC:35811-DB
18. Niranjan Mahto, aged about 57 years, S/o Late Natu Mahto, R/O Vill.-
Subriya, P.O.-Baghmara, P.S.-Baliapur, District-Dhanbad.
19. Rameshwar Mahto, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Madhav Chandra
Mahto, R/o Vill-Salbisihal, P.O.- Gharbar, P.S-Baliapur, District-Dhanbad.
20. Kajal Gorain, aged about 57 years, S/o Late Hiralal Gorain, R/O Vill.-
Baghmara, P.O.-Baghmara, P.S.-Baliapur, District-Dhanbad.
21. Zahir Hussain, aged about 56 years, S/o Late Tahir Hussain, R/O Vill-
Bhikhrajpur, P.O.-Baliapur, P.S.-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad.
22. Binod Kumar Sinha, aged about 46 years, S/o Bhim Mahato, R/O Vill-
Chipudag, P.O.-Ulgadda, P.S.-Patabar, District-Bokaro.
23. Umesh Karmali, aged about 48 years, S/o Late Mohi Kormali, R/O
Vill:- Chipudag, P.O.-Olgadda, P.S.-Patabar, District-Bokaro.
24. Nimai Chandra Mahato, aged about 61 years, S/o Late Sirstidar Mahato,
R/o Vill-Sonabad, P.O.-Ghatiyali, P.S.-Pindrajora, District-Bokaro.
25. Sashi Bhusan Manjhi, aged about 54 years, S/o Late Haricharan Manjhi,
R/O Vill-Kusumtikr, P.O.-Ghatiyali, P.S.-Pindrajora, District-Bokaro.
26. Dhirendra Nath Mahato, aged about 60 years, S/o Upandranath Mahato,
R/o Vill-Chitami, PO-Ghatiyali, P.S-Pindrajora, District-Bokaro.
27. Budhu Manjhi, aged about 54 years, S/o Late Bhikari Manjhi, R/o Vill-
Ghatiyali, P.O-Ghatiyali, P.S-Pindrajora, District-Bokaro.
28. Suresh Paswan, aged about 45 years, S/O Late Mitan Paswan, R/o Vill-
Khudgada, P.O-Swang, P.S-Gomia, District-Bokaro
29. Mahesh Ravidas, aged about 46 years, s/o Late Banshidhar Ravidas, R/o
Vill-Gomia Belatand, P.O-Gomia, P.S:-Gomia, District-Bokaro
30. Rajendra Ravidas, aged about 47 years, S/o Mohan Ravidas R/o Vill-
Gomia Belatand, P.O:-Gomia, P.S-Gomia, District-Bokaro.
31. Karam Chand Ravidas, aged about 46 years, S/o Late Manik Ravidas,
R/o Vill-Gomia Belatand, P.O-Gomia, P.S-Gomia, District-Bokaro
32. Ramesh Yadav, aged about 55 years, S/o Mohan Ram Gope, R/o Vill:-
Gomia, P.O-Gomia, P.S-Gomia, District-Bokaro.
33. Gobind Ravidas, aged about 45 years, S/o Munna Ravidas, R/o Vill-
Gomia, P.O.-Gomia, P.S.-Gomia, District-Bokaro.
34. Om Prakash Paswan, aged about 47 years, S/o Budhan Ram, R/o Vill-
Khudgda, P.O-Swang, P.S-Gomia, District-Bokaro
35. Shamma Rani, aged about 49 years, D/o Late Lalmani Ram, R/o Vill-
Khudgada, P.O.-Swang, P.S-Gomia, District-Bokaro
36. Jagbandhu Mahto, aged about 50 years, S/o Mangal Mahto, R/o Vill-
Sonabad, PO-Ghatiyali, PS- Pindrajora, District-Bokaro.
4
2025:JHHC:25439-DB
2023:JHHC:35811-DB
37. Sanjay Lal Mahto, aged about 46 years, S/o Ambuj Mahto, R/o Vill-
Chitami, P.O-Ghatiyali, PS Pindrajora, District-Bokaro.
38. Sumir Kumar Mahato, aged about 55 years, S/o Dasu Mahto, R/o Vill-
Chitami, PO-Ghatiyali, P.S-Pindrajora, District-Bokaro.
39. Anand Lal Mahato, aged about 59 years, S/o Late Raghu Mahato, R/o
Vill- Koduagora, P.O.-Ghatiyali, P.S-Pindrajora, District-Bokaro.
40. Ashok Kumar Mahato, aged about 59 years, S/o Late Gauri Lal Mahato,
R/o Vill-Sonabad, P.O.-Ghatiyali, P.S.-Pindrajora, District-Bokaro.
41. Haripad Mahto, aged about 58 years, S/o Jayoti Lala Mahto, R/o Vill-
Chitami, Koduagoratola, P.O.-Ghatiyali, P.S.- Pindrajora, District-Bokaro.
............Writ Petitioners/ Proforma Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Appellants : Mr. Afaque Rashidi, Advocate
For the Resp-State of Jharkhand : Mr. Devesh Krishna, SC(Mines)-III
Mr. Kumar Pawan, AC to SC(Mines)-II
For the State of Bihar : Mr. S.P. Roy, G.A
------
C.A.V on 05.08.2025 Pronounced on 26/08/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is
directed against the common order dated 28.02.2022 passed in W.P(S)
No.4661 of 2018 and analogous cases whereby and whereunder this batch
of writ petitions has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge whereby
and whereunder the common prayer for extending the benefits to these
writ petitioners as that of the Non-Formal/Special Education Instructors
in the State of Bihar has been declined.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ
petition needs to refer herein which reads as under:
(i) It is pleaded that in the erstwhile State of Bihar a Central
sponsored National Adult Education came into existence and
5
2025:JHHC:25439-DB
2023:JHHC:35811-DB
started w.e.f. 02.10.1978. Subsequently, another scheme namely
Non-Formal Education Scheme was launched in the year 1980-
81.
(ii) Petitioners in all these writ petitions are claiming that they were
appointed as Instructors in the Non-Formal Education Scheme.
Subsequently, the scheme was closed and the engagement of
personnel, including the petitioners, stood terminated.
(iii) Aggrieved by the same, some of the persons moved before the
Hon'ble Patna High Court by filing writ petitions being CWJC
No. 1458 of 1988 and CWJC No. 8418 of 2010, seeking a
direction for absorption of the Instructors as permanent
employees.
(iv) The petitioners have made a specific averment in these writ
petitions that this Court in W.P.(S). No. 5966 of 2008 directed
the respondents to take steps in light of the observations made by
the Hon'ble Patna High Court in CWJC No. 8418 of 2010 and
subsequently, in some other writ petitions filed in this Court,
similar observations were made. But, still the services of the
petitioners have neither been considered for absorption nor they
have been absorbed.
3. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners has preferred batch of writ
petitions being W.P.(S) No. 4661 of 2018 and analogous cases and the
same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide a common order
dated 28.02.2022.
4. To challenge the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, the
instant appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioners.
6
2025:JHHC:25439-DB
2023:JHHC:35811-DB
5. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioners had
been appointed by the erstwhile State of Bihar under the Non-Formal
Education /Special Education Scheme as Instructors and while they were
working but by virtue of policy decision the entire Non-Formal Education
Scheme has been closed vide the decision so taken dated 30.05.2007.
6. The writ petitioners along with the others have been allocated their
services to the State of Jharkhand after enactment of Bihar Reorganization
Act, 2000. The State of Jharkhand has taken policy decision vide
Memorandum dated 30.05.2007 whereby and whereunder the employees
working under the some of the posts under Non-Formal Education have
been decided to be absorbed which would be evident from the
nomenclature of the post as referred in the said Notification which is being
referred herein as:
क्रम ां क पदन म वेतनम न पर्यवेक्षक अनुसचिवीर् कुल
सम्वर्य सम्वर्य
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
1. परिर्ोजन अचिक िी 5000-8000 164 - 164
2. स ां ख्यिकी-सह-मूल् ां कन 5000-8000 08 08 16
पर्यवेक्षक
3. आशुचलचपक 4000-6000 - 07 07
4. चलचपक-सह-लेख प ल 4000-6000 126 57 183
5. चलचपक-सह-टां कक 4000-6000 35 133 168
6. जीप ि लक 3050-4590 - 18 18
7. आदे शप ल 2550-3200 - 200 200
कुल र्ोर्- 333 423 756
7. From the aforesaid tabular chart, it appears that the post of the writ
petitioners, i.e., the post of the Instructors has not been mentioned in the
said policy decision.
7
2025:JHHC:25439-DB
2023:JHHC:35811-DB
8. The writ petitioners have approached the authority for their absorption
on the ground of parity. The respondent-authority when not passed the
order in favour of the writ petitioners, they have approached this Court by
filing writ petitions being W.P(S) Nos.4516 of 2018, 4542 of 2018, 4571
of 2018, 4661 of 2018 and W.P(S) No.6266 of 2018 which have been
tagged and heard together by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
9. The learned Single Judge has dismissed these writ petitions against
which the instant Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A No.503 of 2022 has
been filed but the same has also been dismissed by a co-ordinate Division
Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.10.2023.
10. The writ petitioners had moved to the Hon'ble Apex Court by
challenging the order dated 10.10.2023 passed by a co-ordinate Division
Bench of this Court vide Civil Appeal No(s).5629 of 2025. The said Civil
Appeal has been allowed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the order passed
by a co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court dated 10.10.2023 has been
quashed and set aside with an order of remand for deciding the issue on
merit, for ready reference the relevant part of the said order of the Hon'ble
Apex Court is being quoted hereinbelow as:
ORDER
“1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant(s) filed a writ petition before the High Court
in the year 2008 with the following prayer(s):
“It is, therefore, prayed that Your Lordships may
graciously be pleased to admit this writ application and
issue notices to each and every other respondents as this
writ application has been directed for issuance of an
appropriate writ order direction and directing and
commanding upon the respondent to absorption and
regularize the petitioner No.1 and other petitioners on
post of teacher of elementary school or any equivalent8
2025:JHHC:25439-DB2023:JHHC:35811-DB
suitable post considering long and continuous services
rendered by the petitioner and its members for
imparting education as non formal Instructor and be not
allowed and after hearing the parties make the same
absolute.
AND
For issuance of directions to the respondent authority
to the respondent authority not to discriminate the
petitioner as well as its members from the case of Gram
Raksha Vahini and employees of Census department
then service has been rendered for depilation Census
for the year 1981, 1991 and 2001 and their service has
been regularization by the State Government.
AND/OR
For issuance of direction upon the Respondent
Authority to absorption the provision of Article 14,
16(1) and 39 (d) along with the guidelines of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court which has been made time to
time in this regard.
AND/OR
Any other writ/s be issued, order/s be passed,
direction/s be made as Your Lordships may deem, fit
and proper.
4. While this writ petition was pending similarly placed
employees belonging to the State of Bihar initiated proceedings
for regularization and their writ petition came to be allowed by
the Single Judge on 02.07.2009 and 21.04.2011 and State
appeal against the said orders was dismissed by the Division
Bench of the High Court on 11.08.2015. While disposing of the
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 32079 of 2015, this Court
passed the following order:
“We find no infirmity in the order impugned herein. The
Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
The relief granted by the High Court shall be restricted
to those who approached the High Court who were
heard as well as who wanted to get themselves
impleaded and those who have filed applications here
at par with those former as well as all those petitioner
Instructors which are pending as on date before the
High Court but shall not apply to any fresh case either
here or before the High Court.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”
5. It is evident from the above that the relief granted by the High
Court was confined to those as indicated in the order extracted
hereinabove.
9
2025:JHHC:25439-DB
2023:JHHC:35811-DB
6. We are of the opinion that the decision of the Supreme Court
in the case of State of Bihar vs. Prabhat Ranjan (viz. SLP (C)
No. 32079 of 2015) could not have become the basis of not
examining the prayer made by the appellants for the simple
reason that many of the appellants had in fact approached the
Court in the year 2008 itself. In this view of the matter, we are
of the opinion that the case of the appellants deserves to be
examined.
7. We have not examined the merits of the matter and we leave
it open for the State to raise such objections as they are
entertainable and it is for the High Court to examine the case
on its own merits.
8. In view of the above, we allow the appeal and set aside the
order passed by the High Court in LPA No. 503 of 2022 dated
10.10.2023. The High Court shall now consider the
submissions made by the appellants on its own merits and
decide the case in accordance with law.
9. Pending application(s) including impleadment applications
are dismissed.”
11. The present appeal has been revived in pursuance to the order
passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No(s).5629 of 2025 and
thereby the case has been listed on the Board of this Court.
Submission on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioners:
12. Mr. Afaque Rashidi, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners/appellants has taken the following grounds:
(i)That the writ petitioners have been discriminated in not getting
absorbed in service while absorbing the other identically placed
employees. But this aspect of the matter has not been taken into
consideration by the learned Single Judge in the impugned
judgment.
(ii) The State has taken policy decision for regularising the
employees working under the Non-Formal Education but even
then, the services of the writ petitioners have not been
regularized.
10
2025:JHHC:25439-DB
2023:JHHC:35811-DB
(iii) The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed
by this Court on the issue of absorption of so called other
identically placed former employees working under the Non-
Formal Education.
13. The learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has
submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge,
therefore, suffers from an error.
Submission on behalf of the Respondent-State:
14. Per contra, Mr. Devesh Krishna, the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent-State to defend the impugned order has raised the
following grounds:
(i) It is incorrect on the part of the petitioners to take the ground that
they are entitled for absorption in service at par with other former
employees under Non-Formal Education, rather the absorption of
the other formal employees is based upon the policy decision dated
30.05.2007, but in the said policy decision there is no reference of
the post of the writ petitioners, i.e, the post of Instructors. Hence,
the case of the writ petitioners does not fall under the category of
parity.
(ii) The further contention has been raised that the identical issue has
been decided by a co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in the
caseofJharkhand Pradesh Anupcharik Jan Sah Vishesh Shiksha
Anudishak Sangh, through its Secretary Anil Kumar Pathak
2019 SCC OnLine Jhar 592 wherein the Letters Patent Appeal has
been dismissed. Hence, the issue having been decided and, as such,
11
2025:JHHC:25439-DB
2023:JHHC:35811-DB
the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be a
faulted one.
15. The learned counsel based upon the aforesaid grounds has
submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge needs no
interference and the present appeal is fit to be dismissed.
Analysis:
16. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
gone through the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the
impugned judgment as also the material available on record.
17. The question which has been raised on behalf of the writ
petitioners on the issue of absorption by claiming parity with the other co-
employees.
18. The fact of extending benefit of parity cannot be disputed since
that is the mandate under Article 14 of the Constitution of India but while
following the principle of parity the Court of law is to consider the issue
of classification based upon the reasonable classification and if the
classification is reasonable then the principle of Article 14 of the
Constitution will not be applicable. However, if the principle of
classification is unreasonable then certainly the Article 14 will be
attracted, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali
Sarkar [AIR 1952 SC 75] wherein it has been held that differentia between
the basis of classification and the object of the things are two different
things. It is important that there must be nexus between the basis of
classification with the object of the Act.
12
2025:JHHC:25439-DB
2023:JHHC:35811-DB
19. In Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia & Ors Vs. Shri Justice S.R.
Tendolkar & Ors [AIR 1958 SC 538], the Hon’ble Apex Court, taking
into consideration catena of judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court,
has held that Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid
reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however,
to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be
fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an
intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are
grouped together from others left out of the group, and (ii) that differentia
must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the
statute in question. The classification may be founded on different bases,
namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like.
What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of
classification and the object of the Act under consideration. It is also well
established by the decisions of this Court that Article 14 condemns
discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of
procedure. Paragraph 11 of the said judgment is quoted as under:
“11. …
(a). That a law may be constitutional even though it relates to
a single individual if, on account of some special circumstances
or reasons applicable to him and not applicable to others, that
single individual may be treated as a class by himself;
(b). That there is always a presumption in favour of the
constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who
attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the
constitutional principles;
13
2025:JHHC:25439-DB
2023:JHHC:35811-DB
(c). That it must be presumed that the legislature understands
and correctly appreciates the need of its own people, that its laws
are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that
its discriminations are based on adequate grounds;
(d). That the legislature is free to recognise degrees of harm
and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is
deemed to be the clearest;
(e). That in order to sustain the presumption of
constitutionality the court may take into consideration matters of
common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of
the times and may assume every state of facts which can be
conceived existing at the time of legislation; and
(f). That while good faith and knowledge of the existing
conditions on the part of a legislature are to be presumed, if there
is nothing on the face of the law or the surrounding
circumstances brought to the notice of the court on which the
classification may reasonably be regarded as based, the
presumption of constitutionality cannot be carried to the extent
of always holding that there must be some undisclosed and un-
known reasons for subjecting certain individuals or corporations
to hostile or discriminating legislation….”
20. The aforesaid principle can further be found from The Special
Courts Bill, 1978, which contains that:
(1). The basic principle of Article 14 is that the persons in similar
circumstances shall be treated similarly both in privileges conferred and
liability imposed.
14
2025:JHHC:25439-DB
2023:JHHC:35811-DB
(2). The State shall have the power to determine with regard to the
process of classification, which should be regarded as a class for the
purpose of legislation and in relation to a law enacted on a particular
subject.
(3). The classification does not mean arbitrary application of law to
certain person instead it means segregation in classes which had a
systematic relation, usually found common property and characteristics.
(4). The law can make and set apart the classes according to the needs
and exigencies of the society and suggested by experience. It can even
recognize ‘degrees of evil’ but the classification should never be arbitrary,
or artificial.
21. In R.K. Garg Vs. Union of India & Ors [(1981) 4 SCC 675], the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that Article 14 forbids class legislation but
does not forbid reasonable classification.
22. It is, thus, evident that Article 14 prohibits discriminatory
legislation against an individual or against a class of individual but it does
not prohibit reasonable classification. Reference in this regard be made to
the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in D.S. Nakara & Ors. v.
Union of India [(1983) 1 SCC 305], wherein at paragraph 11, it has been
held as under:-
“11.The decisions clearly lay down that though Article 14 forbids class
legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of
legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification,
two conditions must be fulfilled viz. (i) that the classification must be
founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things
that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group; and (ii)
that that differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be
achieved by the statute in question (see Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R.
Tendolkar [AIR 1958 SC 538 : 1959 SCR 279, 296 : 1959 SCJ 147] ). The
classification may be founded on differential basis according to objects
15
2025:JHHC:25439-DB2023:JHHC:35811-DB
sought to be achieved but what is implicit in it is that there ought to be a
nexus i.e. causal connection between the basis of classification and object
of the statute under consideration. It is equally well settled by the decisions
of this Court that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a
substantive law but also by a law of procedure.”
23. This Court is now proceeding to examine as to whether the writ
petitioners have been able to make out a case of unreasonable classification
warranting the benefit under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
24. The factual aspect which is not in dispute and it cannot be
disputed by the writ petitioners also by going through the face of the policy
decision upon which the insistence has been given by the learned counsel
for the writ petitioners that the absorption in the service of the writ
petitioners is on the basis of the said policy decision.
25. We have referred the said policy decision hereinabove from
which it would be evident that the State of Jharkhand has taken a policy
decision for absorption of the services of the ex-employees working under
the Non-Formal Education but restricting it to certain post, i.e., the post of
(1) Project Officer, (2) Statistics-cum-Evaluation Supervisor, (3)
Stenographer, (4) Clerk-cum-Accountant, (5) Clerk-cum-Typist, (6) Jeep
Driver, and (7) Orderly (Peon).
26. After going through the entire policy decision, it is evident that
there is no reference in the said policy decision of the posts of the
Instructors for the purpose of absorbing the ex-employees who were
working as Instructor under the Non-Formal Education.
27. It is also admitted case of the writ petitioners that the said policy
decision has not been challenged as to why the post of Instructor has not
been included by the State of Jharkhand by a policy decision for absorption
16
2025:JHHC:25439-DB
2023:JHHC:35811-DB
in service, meaning thereby, the said policy decision has been admitted by
the writ petitioners since not challenged as yet.
28. The law is well settled that if the State has to come out with a
policy decision which is not benefitting the interest of the concerned,
herein the writ petitioners/appellants, then the parity cannot be claimed
with the others whose reference is there in the policy decision taken by the
State.
29. This Court, in view of the aforesaid admitted fact, is of the view
that the writ petitioners/appellants cannot claim parity with the other
employees holding the posts of Instructors prior to closer of Non-Formal
Education Scheme.
30. Therefore, it is not a case where the principle of unreasonable
classification is available and, hence, the action of the respondent authority
cannot be said to contrary to the principle available under Article 14 of
Constitution of India.
31. The further admitted fact is that a similar issue has been decided
by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.02.2019 passed
in the case of Jharkhand Pradesh Anupcharik Jan Sah Vishesh Shiksha
Anudishak Sangh, through its Secretary Anil Kumar Pathak (supra)
wherein the issue absorption of the instructor has been dealt with by
dismissing the said writ petition preferred by the Association, relevant part
of the said order is being referred hereinbelow as:
The appellant-Jharkhand Pradesh Anupcharik Jan Sah Vishesh
Shiksha Anudishak Sangh is aggrieved of the order dated 22.09.2017
passed in W.P.(S) No.3339 of 2010 by which its prayer seeking a
direction upon the respondent-State of Jharkhand to absorb/regularize
its members on any equivalent post of ‘Instructor’ has been declined.
17
2025:JHHC:25439-DB
2023:JHHC:35811-DB
2. Contention raised on behalf of the appellant-Sangh is that the
respondent-State of Jharkhand has discriminated between the
employees who all were appointed by the State of Bihar around the
same time on similar terms and conditions, prior to bifurcation of the
erstwhile State of Bihar, but were posted in the State of Jharkhand at
the relevant time.
3. The appellant-Sangh has pleaded that 75 persons who are its
members were working as ‘Instructor’ under the Non-Formal Education
Scheme on payment of honorarium varying between Rs.105/- to
Rs.200/- per month in different units. They were appointed over a
period ranging between 1981 to 1998 and they were discharging duties
similar to the teachers in Elementary School. By a public notice dated
21.05.2001 the employees working under the Non-Formal Education
Scheme were informed that the centers have been closed. The reason
for closure of the unit/center was that the Central Government had
withdrawn/closed the Scheme. In a batch of writ petitions filed in the
Patna High Court vide C.W.J.C. No.8110 of 2001 and batch cases, a
learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court by an order dated
02.07.2009 directed the State of Bihar to absorb the non-formal
Instructors in service. The Division Bench of Patna High Court as well
as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the order passed in
C.W.J.C. No.8110 of 2001.
4. Relying on the aforesaid judgment of the Patna High Court, Mr. A.K.
Sahani, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
employees who were also appointed by the State of Bihar who came
within the State of Jharkhand due to bifurcation of the erstwhile State
of Bihar cannot be treated differently.
5. In the first place, the issue before the Patna High Court was whether
after regularising the service of non-formal Supervisors the State could
have discriminated and refused to regularize services of non-formal
Instructors, who were also appointed by the State of Bihar on similar
terms and conditions and working under the same Scheme. Here the
appellant-Sangh has not brought on record any decision of the
respondent-State of Jharkhand that one set of employees for example,
non-formal Supervisors have been regularised whereas claim for
regularisation of the members of the appellant-Sangh who were
working as non-formal Instructors has been declined. The question of
appointment/regularisation in service is primarily a policy matter of the
State and decision of the State of Bihar shall not be binding on the State
of Jharkhand. The learned writ Court has rightly observed that after18
2025:JHHC:25439-DB2023:JHHC:35811-DB
the Scheme was closed the employees under the Scheme has no right to
seek regularisation. The learned Single Judge has held, thus;
“As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules,
guidelines and judicial pronouncements, I am of the considered view
that case of the petitioners are not tenable in the eyes of law. No case
of regularisation has been made out. State has no Scheme to continue
the centrally sponsored time bound scheme which has already been
closed by Government of India and as such, the writ petition is
dismissed.”
6. Having carefully examined the materials on record, we find no
infirmity in the order passed by the writ Court and, accordingly, L.P.A
No.649 of 2017 is dismissed.
32. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussions, is of the view
that when the similar issue has already been decided by a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court which has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court
by dismissal of S.L.P being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).
26808/2019 vide order dated 26.08.2019, for ready reference same is being
quoted as under:
” We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner.
Delay condoned.
We do not find any good ground warranting interference with the
impugned order in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. The special leave petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of”
33. Thus, on basis of discussion made hereinabove and also taking
into consideration the policy decision of the state of Jharkhand vide
Memorandum dated 30.05.2007 by which the employees working under
the some of the posts under Non-Formal Education have been decided to
be absorbed but the post of the Instructors have been excluded and further
taking into consideration that the similar issue has already been decided
by the Division Bench of this Court against which the SLP has been
19
2025:JHHC:25439-DB
2023:JHHC:35811-DB
dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that the
order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.4661 of 2018 and
analogous cases cannot be said to be suffered from an error.
34. Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A
No.503 of 2022 sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
35. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Sudhir
Dated:26/08/2025
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
AFR
20
[ad_1]
Source link