2025:JHHC:33707 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Contempt Case (Civil) No. 438 of 2020 -- Shashi Kant Kumar Barnwal aged about 54 years, son of late Basudeo Modi at present an Assistant Teacher, Project Girls High School, Barakttha, P.O. & P.S: Barkatha, Dist: Hazaribag and resident of Village: Barktha, P.O. & P.S: Barkhata, Dist: Hazaribag ...Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sri Rahul Sharma, son of not known to the petitioner, the Principal Secretary, Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Telephone Bhawan, H.E.C, Area, P.O. P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi 3. Sri Jata Shankar Choudhary, son of not know to the petitioner, the Director, Secondary Education, Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Telephone Bhawan, H.E.C. Area, P.O. P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. ...Opposite parties With Contempt Case (Civil) No.929 of 2019 -- (a) Somnath Pradhan (b) Sneha Pradhan (c) Kumar Saurabh, all resident of village Kula, P.O. Tutia, P.S. Goelkera, Singhbhum West, Distt. Singhbhum, Jharkhand ...Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, S/o Father’s name not known to the petitioner, Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Telephone Bhavan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand ...Opposite parties With Contempt Case (Civil) No.949 of 2019 -- Sarojini Mahato W/O Chandra Shekhar Mahato Aged about 54 Years, Assistant Teacher, Project Girls’ High School, Sonua, Singhbhum West, at and P.O. Sonua, P.S. Sonua, Singhbhum West. ...Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, S/o Father’s name not known to the petitioner, Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Telephone Bhavan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand ...Opposite parties 2025:JHHC:33707 2 -- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate [Cont. Case (C) No. 438/2020] M/s. Shubha Jha, Arbind Kumar Jha, Ganesh Ram, Advocates [Cont. Case (C) No. 929 & 949/2019] For the O.P-State : Mr. J.F. Toppo, G.A.-V Mr. Neil Abhijit Toppo, A.C to G.A.-V Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C to AAG-II --- 31/03.11.2025 All these contempt applications have been preferred for non-compliance of the order dated 05.09.2018, which was a common order passed in several Writ Applications being W.P.(S) No. 921 of 2011 with analogous cases. 2. From the record, it appears that several appeals were filed before learned Division Bench of this Court being L.P.A. No. 138 of 2019 with analogous cases. 3. The instant contempt applications are connected with L.P.A. Nos. 540 of 2019, 541 of 2019 and 592 of 2019. 4. From Para-32 of the order dated 19th January, 2024 passed in L.P.A. No. 138 of 2019, it appears that the arguing counsel on behalf of the appellants had withdrawn several L.P.A(s), with an undertaking that the same shall be considered for regularization in terms of Resolution dated 22.11.2023, if otherwise found eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher and on the basis of those undertaking few Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed as withdrawn including L.P.A Nos. 540 of 2019, 541 of 2019 and 592 of 2019, which relate to the above referred contempt 2025:JHHC:33707 3 applications. For brevity Paras 32 and 36 of the order dated 19th January, 2024 are extracted hereinbelow: “32. The respondents are seeking regularization also on the basis of the Resolution dated 22nd November 2023 to regularize the services of untrained teachers belonging to SC/ST and Women categories. In this context, Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned Additional Advocate-General submitted that the respondents in LPA Nos. 430 of 2019, 473 of 2019, 540 of 2019, 541 of 2019, 592 of 2019, 641 of 2019, 654 of 2019, 705 of 2019, 711 of 2019, 784 of 2019, 840 of 2019, 867 of 2019, 921 of 2019, 24 of 2020, 51 of 2020, 79 of 2020, 131 of 2020, 346 of 2019, 134 of 2020, 155 of 2020 and the respondent nos.1 and 2 in LPA No. 40 of 2020 shall be considered for regularization in terms of the Resolution dated 22nd November 2023, if otherwise found eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher. These Letters Patent Appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11th December 2023. 33. Lastly, the prayers made in the writ petitions were different and such writ petitions could not have been disposed of by a common order. In several writ petitions, a prayer for recognizing their services has been made by the Assistant Teachers. Whereas, some of the teachers are also seeking consequential reliefs including the monetary benefits w.e.f. 1st January 1989 in terms of the government notification dated 9th February 2011. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents submitted that there are three distinct categories of the Assistant Teachers viz (i) whose training certificate was not recognized by the NCTE (ii) untrained teachers belonging to SC, ST, and Woman categories and (iii) untrained teachers of the second phase2 schools who are eligible in terms of the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court. There is also a fourth category of teachers who are said to be working in the “closed schools”. Just to indicate that the prayers in the writ petitions were 74 L.P.A. No. 138 of 2019 & analogous cases varied and wide ranging, we shall reproduce the prayers made in WP(S) No. 921 of 2011 which read as under: i) For quashing the order issued vide Memo No.4174 dated 09th September 2010 under the signature of Respondent No.3 wherein and whereunder the claim of the petitioners regarding recognition of their services has been refused on the strength of a committee which is extra-legal and contrary to the decision of the Apex Court passed on the issue involved in the present writ petition and upon which respondent has acted and further they have completely misconstrued the order of Hon’ble High Court as well as Supreme Court wherein it has been clearly directed to give the same treatment to the petitioners who are employees of the project school of the year 1984-85 similar to the project school of the year 1981-82 and further out of 300 schools, 89 schools are in the territory of the State of Jharkhand and they have been given different treatment than to the schools falling in the territory of Bihar and this amounts to hostile discrimination as well as contrary to the mandate of Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000; 2025:JHHC:33707 4 ii) For direction upon Respondent No.5 the State of Bihar to forward the recommendation of the three men committee constituted as per the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court and also the criteria adopted by the Respondent No.3 for recognizing the services of the employees of the Project School of the year 1984-85; iii) Directing the respondents to recognize the services of persons working on different posts in project Girls High School including the present petitioners and further to absorb them to their respective posts and to pay their salaries with effect from 1.1.1989 up-to-date, as school has been taken over under the scheme and the case of the petitioners are fully covered by the decision of Full Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna, reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 287; v) For initiating proceeding against the concerned authorities of the State of Jharkhand for alleged disobedience of order passed by Full Bench reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 287 as the impugned order is contrary to observations / directions made by the Full Bench the Hon’ble High Court and approved by the Apex Court. 5. From the record, it further transpires that the opposite parties have passed the reasoned order rejecting the claim of the petitioners which would find place in the order dated 07.06.2024 which is Annexure-F to the supplementary show cause dated 05.03.2025. Similar order has been passed in case of all these petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the respective Petitioners strenuously contended that there is a contempt of this Court’s order and the Opposite Party-State are trying to mislead this Court. In this regard, it is clarified that so far as the order passed by the Writ Court for which these contempt applications have been filed is dated 05.09.2018 and the batch matters have been dismissed as withdrawn by Division Bench which is apparent from para-32 of the appellate order which is quoted hereinabove. 2025:JHHC:33707 5 Further, from perusal of Para-32 of the order passed by the Division Bench in the analogues cases, it is evident that the opposite parties have withdrawn several appals including three appeals which is connected with the above three applications on the submission that their cases for regularization shall be considered in terms of Resolution dated 22.11.2023, if otherwise found eligible for appointment. The relevant Para-32 has already been extracted hereinabove. 7. From the conjoint reading of Paras-32 and 36 coupled with the reasoned order, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that there is no contempt of Court. Admittedly, the reasoned order has been passed after getting liberty from the appellate court and the writ court’s order has been set aside. Therefore, though the petitioners are having liberty to file a fresh writ application so far as merits of that reasoned order is concerned; but certainly, no case for contempt is made out against the opposite parties. 8. Accordingly, all these applications stand disposed of. However, the Petitioners are at liberty to assail the respective reasoned order passed against them. 9. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 3rd November, 2025 Jk Uploaded on 12/11 /2025