2025:JHHC:18561 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 6169 of 2018 ---------- Smt. Sudha Kumari, wife of Anil Kumar Jha, resident of Bata Road, Sahebganj, P.O. & P.S. Sahebganj, District Sahebganj, State Jharkhand. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, having its office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Town and District Ranchi, State Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jaggrnathpur, Town and District Ranchi, State Jharkhand. 3. The Director, Secondary Education-cum-Joint Director, Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagganathpur, Town and District Ranchi, State Jharkhand. ………. Respondents. ---------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Abhishek Kr. Dubey, Yuvraj Singh, Asit Anwar, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Divyam, AC to SC-IV ---------- 05/ 10.07.2025 The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing of the order dated 24.09.2018, issued by the respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and also to quash the memo No.1228 dated 22.10.2018, issued by the District Education Officer, Sahebganj by which the petitioner has been relieved from his work. Petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents to reinstate her in service with all consequential benefits or in alternative, if during the pendency of the writ application petitioner attains the age of superannuation, then the respondents may be directed to pay full back wages to the petitioner for the entire period for which she was kept out of service along with all consequential benefits treating the petitioner throughout in service. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 28.12.1983, purely on temporary basis. Thereafter, she worked for several years and was granted increments and promotion from time to time. However, on 2025:JHHC:18561 2 18.02.2010, she was served with charge-sheet levelling the allegation that the appointment of the petitioner was made against the rules, inasmuch as neither any advertisement was published nor her name was forwarded by the Employment Exchange. It was also alleged that the roster clearance was also not done as per applicable rules nor any interview was held. 3. The petitioner was asked to submit her reply which she has submitted on 22.03.2010 to the District Education Officer, Sahebganj. The petitioner again submitted a letter dated 08.04.2010, stating that the appointment of the petitioner has been made in accordance with the law and there is no illegality in it. Thereafter, on 16.05.2011, the District Education Officer has directed the petitioner to produce all the relevant evidence on 19.05.2011 before the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Dumka. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted her reply on 17.05.2011. 4. The Enquiry Officer (Regional Deputy Director Education) found that the petitioner’s appointment was not in accordance with law. Accordingly, on 03.05.2012 she was issued 2nd show-cause notice to which the petitioner replied reiterating the same thing. Thereafter, on 24.09.2018, the petitioner was awarded the punishment of termination from service. Pursuant to the said order, the District Education Officer vide letter dated 22.10.2018, relieved the petitioner from the work. Hence, she has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner has been terminated; however, on similar allegations, more than 40 co-employees/ teachers were also terminated. All of them filed their separate writ applications and the same were allowed. One of such writ application was W.P.(S). No. 6023 of 2018 (Sushma Kumari @ Sushma Kumari Dev Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while quashing the order of termination, allowed the said writ application. Thereafter, the respondents preferred an appeal being L.P.A. No. 141 of 2021, which was also dismissed with a direction that the respondent be restored to her post with all financial and other service benefits within 60 working days. Thereafter, the 2025:JHHC:18561 3 respondents preferred S.L.P. which also stood dismissed. As such, the present petitioner is also entitled for similar benefits. 6. On the other hand, the respondent-State tried to distinguish the facts of this case with the other cases by submitting that the Advertisement was not issued in this case. However, he could not dispute the fact that the points taken in the impugned order with regard to roster clearance is same and similar. Learned counsel further submits that a full-fledged departmental proceeding was held in which the allegations against the petitioner has been proved and as such, at this stage no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 7. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, it appears that the issue involved in this case has already been settled upto the Hon’ble Apex Court. Admittedly, one of the co-employee/ teachers, Sushma Kumari had approached this Court in W.P.(S). No. 6023 of 2018, which was allowed in her favour. The order of the Writ Court was challenged by the State in LPA No. 141 of 2021, which was also dismissed, in which the Division Bench of this Court has discussed the merits of the case. For brevity, para-8 of the order passed in LPA No. 141 of 2021 is quoted herein below: “8. Moreover, the petitioner-respondent has been appointed in the year 1988 and after expiry of more than 20 years, this question cannot be raised as a valid issue. The second point is regarding following up Roster regarding reservation of different category. This issue has been dealt by the Patna High Court in Indra Mandal Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 2011 SCC Online Pat 1072, wherein, similar question of Roster clearance was raised and it was alleged that the concerned authority has not taken Roster clearance before appointment. At paragraph 8 it has been ruled by the Patna High Court that in view of the findings of this Court earlier and the claim of the petitioner from before, the onus lays on the respondent to establish on the basis of records of their offices, that either there was no decision of the Divisional Establishment Committee as referred to in the order of appointment of the petitioner issued by the Regional Deputy Director or the Establishment Committee had not taken into consideration any panel of names or had not adopted any procedure before recommending the petitioner for his appointment.” 8. In crux, the issue with respect to roster clearance involved in this writ application has already been set at rest in favour of the employees. 2025:JHHC:18561 4 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.09.2018, issued by the respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and also the memo No.1228 dated 22.10.2018, issued by the District Education Officer, Sahebganj by which the petitioner has been relieved from work, are hereby, quashed and set aside and the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits. The entire consequential benefits shall be released by the Respondents, except the back wages during the period of termination; within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Respondents shall take a separate decision on the back wages after hearing the petitioner and pass an appropriate order. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) kunal/-