Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 37648 (JHR)

ABHAY KUMAR SHARMA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

C.M.P./908/2023 · 2025-09-26

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2025:JHHC:30614 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 908 of 2023 1. Abhay Kumar Sharma 2. Kumod Choudhary 3. Dashrath Prasad Yadav 4. Hakim Kumar Das 5. Sudhakar Mishra 6. Shakti Shankar Poddar 7. Satish Chandra Das 8. Duryodhan Mahra 9. Ram Prasad Mehra 10. Ajay Kumar Amar 11. Heera Kumar Routh 12. Aziza Praween 13. Raymani Kullu 14. Parwati Devi 15. Md. Ayub Ali 16. Md. Irfan 17. Md. Farooque Azam 18. Prem Rajak 19. Babulal Panjiyara 20. Madhusudan Rana 21. Ramakant Mandal 22. Nepal Kuma Mandal 23. Mukesh Mandal 24. Nargis Anjum 25. Rekha Kumari 26. Deepak Kumar Paswan 27. Md. Shamin Ahmad 28. Suresh Prasad Yadav 29. Asha Kumari 30. Binod Kumar Sharma 31. Gautam Kumar Paswan 32. Dulal Mondal 33. Laxman Kumar 34. Sunita Kumari 35. Dharmendra Kumar Verma 36. Md. Shanbaz Alam 37. Dolly Gupta 38. Baleshwar Prasad Mahato … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Ranchi 3. Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Ranchi 4. Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi 5. Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi 6. State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi ( 2025:JHHC:30614 ) 2 7. Secretary, Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi … … Opp. Parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Ms. Bharti V. Kaushal, Advocate For the JAC : Ms. Risheeta Singh, A.C. to Mrs. Richa Sanchita For the State :Mr. Mukesh Kumar Mehta, A.C. to G.P. VI --- 07/26.09.2025 Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This petition has been filed for restoration of W.P. (S) No. 658 of 2020 which stood dismissed on 28.09.2022on account of non removal of defects within the stipulated period. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on account of reasons beyond the control of the petitioners, the defects could not be removed. She submits that otherwise they are ready to remove the defects if the writ petition is restored. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have no serious objection to the prayer for restoration. 5. Considering the aforesaid submissions and being satisfied with the cause shown, the time for removal of defects in W.P. (S) No. 658 of 2020 is extended till 07.11.2025. 6. If the defects in the writ petition are removed within the extended period, office is directed to place the writ petition before appropriate Bench as per roster. 7. This CMP is accordingly disposed of. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 26.09.2025 Binit