2025:JHHC:35820 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Contempt Case (Civil) No. 690 of 2025 Vivek Kumar, S/o Jai Mangal Sahu, R/o Church Road, PO & PS- Lower Bazar, Ranchi ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sri Vinay Kumar Choubey, Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. Sri Umashankar Singh, Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. Sri Rahul Kumar Purwar, Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 5. Sri Manjunath Bhajantri, Deputy Commissioner-cum- Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Ranchi 6. Sri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Ranchi 7. Sri Badal Raj, District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi ... … Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, AC to SC (Mines)-II ----- 03/01.12.2025 The present contempt petition has been filed for initiating a contempt proceeding against the contemnors/opposite parties alleging wilful violation of the order dated 12.10.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5012 of 2021. 2. A show cause affidavit dated 03.07.2025 has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 7, the relevant paragraphs of which read as under: “7. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the said counselling process was conducted in the month of August 2024 pursuant to the final order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous matters dated 15.09.2023. The said counselling process was carried out strictly in accordance with Letter No. 1001 dated 06.08.2024 issued by the Director, Primary Education, 2025:JHHC:35820 2 School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand. 8. That final round of counseling, in compliance with the Hon’ble Court’s direction in the L.P.A., was conducted by the answering respondent and that the petitioner was included within the eligible candidates for counseling conducted on 01.08.2024. 9. That it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to selection for appointment, as he had applied in the VI-VIII BC category under the Non-Para Arts stream and secured 68.169 marks, whereas the cut- off marks for the said category stood at 70.544. That it is further submitted that there existed no vacancy in the Unreserved (UR) category. Therefore, from the standpoint of merit and availability of vacancies, the petitioner does not qualify for selection and appointment. 10. That in compliance of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 12.10.2023 in W.P.(S) No. 5012 of 2021, the answering opposite party no. 7 issued a reasoned order vide Office memo no. 1613 dated 03.06.2025 which was also communicated to the petitioner.” 3. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the candidature of the petitioner was considered for appointment as ‘Assistant Teacher’ for Class VI to VIII in BC category under Non-Para Arts stream, however, despite the fact that he secured 68.16 marks, he was not appointed and a candidate below him in the said category has been appointed. 4. Be that as it may. 5. Since the petitioner’s candidature has been considered in compliance of the order dated 12.10.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5012 of 2021, no case of contempt is made out against the opposite parties. The contempt proceeding as against the opposite parties is hereby dropped. 2025:JHHC:35820 3 6. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of. 7. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse as available under law against his non-selection as Assistant Teacher in the concerned category. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) December 01, 2025 Manish Uploaded on 02.12.2025