2025:JHHC:35442 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.1402 of 2019 ------- Anoop Kumar Singh, [Aged about 54 Years), son of Sri Gupteshwar Singh, resident of village Chainpur, P.O. & P.S. Chainpur, District-Palamau. … Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through the Director, Secondary Education Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. District Superintendent Education Officer, Palamau, P.O. & P.S.- Daltongaj, District- Palamau. 3. Headmaster, Project Girls High School Chainpur, P.O. & P.S. Chainpur, District Palamau ……..Respondents ------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Petitioner : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Kishore Kr. Singh, SC-V : Mr. Krishna Prajapati, AC to SC-V ------- CAV ON:30.10.2025 Pronounced On:- 27/11/2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this Writ application, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: - (i) That the petitioner in the instant writ petition prays for quashing of order dated 13.12.2018 (Annexure-8) whereby the petitioner was dismissed from services without departmental proceeding by show cause only to camouflage the principles of natural justice, as, it was misconceived notion about the order dated 13.02.2015 [Annexure-7] passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (S) No.5701/2013 as also because it was not relating to any misconduct alleged against the petitioner whose services had been confirmed long back, was also granted ACP etc. [Annexure-3] had rendered more than 26 years of service. (ii) For a consequential relief of reinstatement on the post held by him prior to dismissal after making necessary adjustment as has been done in case of another similar situated employee in view of the letter dated 07.06.2012 who was also appointed in the same School around the same time by the same office. 3. Briefly stated, as per the pleadings in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as a Class IV employee (peon) in Project 2025:JHHC:35442 2 Girls High School, Chainpur, Palamau by order of the then District Education Officer (DEO), Palamau dated 12 May 1992. His service was later confirmed with retrospective effect from 13 May 1995 through Memo No.981 dated 26 June 2009. Subsequently, the petitioner was also granted the benefit of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme with effect from 13 May 2004, which was approved by the competent authority and communicated by the Divisional Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medininagar through letter No.276 dated 5 March 2010. 4. The records further reveal that in 2013, the Petitioner filed W.P.(S) No.5701/2013 before this Court for release of current salary including arrears of salary w.e.f. 1.4.2011 and also to adjust him in another school like others against Class-IV post and to allow him to discharge his duties. The writ application was disposed of on 13 February 2015 with directions for reconsideration of his case. 5. Pursuant to this, on 5 December 2015, the Respondent No.2 wrote a letter to Respondent No.1 enclosing the petitioner’s service history and vacancy position in compliance with the Court’s order. On 31 October 2017, Respondent No.1 directed the DEO, Palamau to comply with the earlier directions after hearing the petitioner, vide letter No.1973. 6. In response, the DEO submitted a letter dated 21 April 2018 (Memo No.637) recounting the petitioner’s appointment, confirmation, and grant of ACP. The DEO recommended that the petitioner’s case be considered on similar footing as that of one Sri 2025:JHHC:35442 3 Rajesh Kumar Sinha, a clerk appointed in the same school, whose services had been adjusted in Project Girls School, Patan by order dated 7 June 2012. However, Respondent No.1 rejected this recommendation, terming it misleading, and issued Memo No.1716 dated 18 June 2018 directing strict compliance with the High Court’s order. 7. It has been contended by the Petitioner that the Respondents had already pre-decided to terminate his services by misinterpreting the High Court’s directions in W.P.(S) No.5701/2013. This is evidenced, according to him, by Memo No.1320 dated 11 September 2018, wherein Respondent No.2 allegedly disclosed that the High Court had directed termination. 8. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued on 28 November 2018, which was reportedly not received by the petitioner but by another office peon of Rajmata Project Girls School, Chainpur. A second show-cause notice followed, though no formal departmental enquiry was conducted nor any enquiry report prepared. 9. Ultimately, by order dated 13 December 2018, the petitioner’s services were terminated. It has been further contended by the petitioner that this action was taken despite earlier letters from the authorities suggesting his case was similar to that of another clerk whose services had been regularized. The petitioner further alleges that the respondents took a “U-turn” in their stance after he declined to participate in a public program (Jansambad) of the Chief Minister, and that the 2025:JHHC:35442 4 termination order was a mere formality, amounting to rubber- stamp compliance; rather than genuine consideration of justice. 10. On these grounds, the petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the legality of his termination and seeking relief. 11. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State wherein it has been categorically stated that the State of Bihar, through its policy decision in 1981, resolved to establish at least one Girls High School in every block to promote female education. In situations where government school buildings were unavailable, the Department directed that private schools with adequate infrastructure, trained teachers, and departmental permission could be identified and recognized as “Project Girls High Schools”. 12. Pursuant to this policy, Rajmata Praful Manjari Girls High School, Chainpur in Palamau district was officially identified as the Project Girls High School in the second phase of implementation during 1984–85. 13. On the contrary, another institution, Girls High School, Chainpur, merely self-declared itself as a Project Girls High School without ever being formally recognized by the authorities. 14. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the rival parties and after going through the relevant documents annexed with the respective affidavits it transpires that the petitioner in this case was appointed as a peon in Girls High School, Chainpur, a private institution, by the then District Education Officer (DEO), Palamu 2025:JHHC:35442 5 in 1992. Payment orders followed in 1994, and his service was confirmed in 2009 with conditional ACP benefits. 15. However, the legality of this appointment came under scrutiny after the Supreme Court, in 2006, directed the constitution of a three-member committee under Syed M. Alam to examine the validity of Project Girls High Schools and the appointments of their staff. The committee reaffirmed Rajmata Praful Manjari Girls High School as the genuine Project Girls High School in Chainpur block and recommended recognition and regularization of its teaching and non-teaching staff. Girls High School, Chainpur, where the Petitioner was appointed was not recognized, and consequently, its staff appointments were excluded from regularization. 16. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition in 2013 seeking recognition of his service. In 2017, the Director of Secondary Education, Jharkhand ordered verification of his appointment. The inquiry revealed that the DEO had no jurisdiction to appoint peons in private/government schools; and appointments were to be made only from the approved district panel or on compassionate grounds in government schools. Thereafter, show cause notices were issued to the petitioner in 2018, but his replies were found unsatisfactory. Ultimately, his appointment was declared unlawful and ab-initio void, leading to termination of his service in December 2018. 2025:JHHC:35442 6 17. In crux, the Petitioner’s appointment was made in a private school that was never recognized as a Project Girls High School. Further, the DEO lacked authority to make such an appointment, and furthermore the appointment process bypassed the established district panel procedure. Therefore, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that the initial appointment of the Petitioner itself was invalid, accordingly the termination of his service was legally justified. 18. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. The appointment of the Petitioner being void ab-initio, the termination order dated 13.12.2018 is valid and justified. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to cost. Pending I.As., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) November 27, 2025 Fahim/- AFR/NAFR Uploaded on 27/11/2025