2025:JHHC:37921 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.7492 of 2025 ----- Ram Pradarth Sharma @ Ram Padarth Mistri, S/o Late Churan Sharma, R/o Barhi, Loha Toli, Dhanbad Road, P.O. Barhi, P.S. Barhi, District Hazaribagh .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand 3.Jharkhand Academic Council through its Secretary office at Namkum, P.O. and P.s. Namkum, District Ranchi 4.The Chairman Governing Body of Barhi Inter Mahavidyalaya, P.O. and P.S. Barhi, District Hazaribagh 5.The Secretary, Governing Body of Barhi Inter Mahavidyalaya, P.O. and P.S. Barhi, District Hazaribagh 6.The District Education Officer, Hazaribagh cum Member, Governing Body of Barhi Inter Mahavidyalaya, P.O. and P.S. Barhi, District Hazaribagh 7.The Sub Divisional Officer, Barhi-cum- Member, Governing Body of Barhi Inter Mahavidyalaya, P.O. and P.S. Barhi, District Hazaribagh 8. Barhi Inter Mahavidyalaya, Barhi through its Principal, P.O. and P.S. Barhi, District Hazaribagh … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.M. Sharma, Advocate Mr. Saibal Mitra, Advocate Mr. S.B. Gupta, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saurav Mahto, AC to G.P.-I For the Resp-JAC : Ms. Richa Sanchita, Advocate …...... 02 / 17.12.2025: There is nothing on record to show that the services of the petitioner has been extended after retirement. 2. The petitioner is relying upon Annexure-3, which is letter of Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi by which only the petitioner was engaged for evaluating some papers. The petitioner has taken a plea that since in that letter it has been written that the petitioner has to be relieved from his organization thus, it is to be presumed that his services has been extended by the said organization. 3. To get an extension in service there has to be some specific order. Extension in service not a right and after retirement extension of service should not normally be granted. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Jag Mohan Lal, reported in 1989 Supp (1) SCC 221 at paragraph 9 has held as under:- 9. It seems to us that the High Court has misconstrued the legal right claimed by the respondent. The right to get extension of service beyond the age of superannuation has received consideration of this Court in several cases. In State of Assam v. Basanta Kumar Das [(1973) 1 SCC 461 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 239 : (1973) 3 SCR 158]. after reviewing almost all the earlier decisions [Kailash Chandra v. Union of India [(1962) 1 SCR 374 : AIR 1961 SC 1346 : (1961) 2 LLJ 639] ; B.N. Mishra v. State of U. P. [(1965) 1 SCR 693 : AIR 1965 SC 1567 : (1966) 1 LLJ 45] and State of Assam v. Premadhar [(1970) 2 SCC 211 : (1971) 1 SCR 503] ], this Court said: (SCR p. 165 : SCC p. 467, paras 16 and 18) “A government servant has no right to continue in service beyond the age of superannuation and if he is retained beyond that age it is only in exercise of the discretion of the Government.... The fact that certain persons were found fit to be continued in service does not mean that others who were not so found fit had been discriminated against. Otherwise, the whole idea of continuing only efficient people in service even after they had completed 55 years becomes only meaningless.” 5. This Court in the case of Abinash Kumar Parmar and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Others passed in W.P.(S) No.5701 of 2025 has held that the Court sitting in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot direct to give extension to a superannuated employee. A superannuated employee has got no right to get an extension of service after superannuation. 6. In this case, I find that there is no document to suggest that by any order, the petitioner had got extension from service. The Annexure-3 which the petitioner is relying upon, which is the letter issued to the petitioner by JAC to evaluate some answer sheet cannot be said to be an extension. Further, admittedly, the petitioner is not employee of JAC. Petitioner was a teacher in a private Inter College though affiliated under JAC thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 17th December, 2025 R.S./ Uploaded on 19 /12/2025