2025:JHHC:24152 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 47 of 2017 Sahitya Kumar Mishra, S/o- Krishna Prasad Mishra, R/o- Village- Ahilyapur, PO & PS- Ahilyapur, District- Giridih, Jharkhand ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary Human Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand at Project Building, Ranchi, PO- Dhurwa, PS- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi. 2. Warden-Cum-Principle, Kasturba Gandhi Balika Awasiya Vidyalaya, Gandey, PO, PS and District- Giridih. 3. Regional Education Director, North Chotanagpur Region, PO & PS- Hazaribag, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand. 4. The Secretary, The School Education and Literacy Department, Government Of Jharkhand at Project Building, Ranchi, PO-Dhurwa, PS- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi. 5. The State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council at Shyamli Colony, Doranda, PO & PS- Doranda, District-Ranchi 6. The Deputy Commissioner -Cum- President, District Elementary Education Committee at Giridih, PO & PS- Giridih, District-Giridih. 7. District Superintendent of Education -cum- District Programme Officer, Giridih, PO & PS- Giridih, District-Giridih. 8. Additional District Programme Officer, Giridih, PO & PS- Giridih, District- Giridih, Jharkhand 9. Assistant Programme Officer, Giridih, PO & PS- Giridih, District- Giridih, Jharkhand 10. Account Officer, Giridih, PO & PS- Giridih, District- Giridih, Jharkhand 11. DEO, Giridih, PO & PS- Giridih, District- Giridih, Jharkhand … … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. N. Sahay, Sr. Advocate Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, GA-III -------- Order No. 8/Dated: 18th August 2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the order dated 15.06.2016 (Annexure-9 to the writ application) passed by the Warden, Kasturba Gandhi Balika Awasiya Vidyalaya, Gandey, Giridih; whereby the 2025:JHHC:24152 2 petitioner was removed from service of Sanskrit Teacher without following principles of natural justice. 2. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-9 and submits that without following principles of natural justice, the petitioner has been removed from service. He further draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-D to the counter affidavit and tried to impress this Court that the said Annexure is of the year, 2014 which clearly stipulates that any vacant post has to be filled up by female teachers in the concerned schools. It has been submitted that the respondents had applied this letter dated 22.04.2014 with retrospective effect which is not in accordance with settled proposition of law; as such, the impugned order is bad in law and the same may be quashed and set aside. He further contends that the petitioner is entitled for the entire back wages for the period from 25.08.2009 to December, 2011 and from 10.01.2016 to 15.06.2016. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that when one of the respondents visited the Girls School, he came across several male teachers in the school which is against the letter dated 22.04.2014 and the said letter is quite logical, inasmuch as, the school is entirely female school and even the entry of male is prohibited. He further draws attention of this Court to Annexure-D and submits that there is a specific instruction not to appoint male worker in the said schools. 4. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and also the letter dated 22.04.2014, it appears that it has restricted the male casual workers including Class-IV to be appointed for filling up the vacant posts. One of the arguments of the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the petitioner that this letter is not applicable to the petitioner because he had been working prior to issuance of letter dated 22.04.2014, is not accepted by 2025:JHHC:24152 3 this Court for the reason that firstly, there is nothing illogical in this letter and the petitioner is a casual worker and secondly, the last line of the said letter clearly states that all the previous notification, orders etc. shall be deemed to be amended. As such the contention of the petitioner that he was appointed in the year 2009 and letter dated 22.04.2014 will not be applicable in this case, is not sustainable. The next argument of Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner is that principles of natural justice have not been followed. Even admitting the said contention to be true, no fruitful purpose would be sufficed by remitting the case back to the concerned authority to ratify the procedural irregularity because this letter has neither been challenged before this Court nor it has been stated that this letter is affecting the petitioner. The simple argument was that this letter would not be applicable because it is issued on 22.04.2014 and the petitioner is working since 25.08.2009. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the instant writ application stands dismissed. 6. So far as payment of admitted dues is concerned, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the concerned respondent with supporting documents and if at all any admitted dues is not paid, the same shall be looked into and appropriate decision shall be passed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 7. Pending, I.A, if any, stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Amit