2025:JHHC:25676 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 3421 of 2017 --------- Pramod Kumar Mishra son of Late Chatradhari Mishra, resident of Village Kasba, P.O. Kasba Dudhichak, P.S. Meharma, District Godda. ......Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 3. The Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 4. Sidhu Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka, through its Vice- Chancellor, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District Dumka. 5. The Vice-Chancellor, Sidhu Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District Dumka. 6. The Registrar, Sidhu Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District Dumka. 7. The Principal, S.R.T. College, Dhamri, P.O. and P.S. Dhamri, District- Dumka. 8. State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna At & PO & PS & Dist.-Patna. 9. Tilka Manjhi University, Bhagalpur through it vice-chancellor, Bhagalpur at & PO & PS & Dist.-Bhagalpur, Bihar. .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Sumir Prasad, A.K. Jha, Ganesh Jha,Prabhash Kumar, Advocates For the State of Jharkhand : Mr. Chandan Tiwary, A.C. to G.A.-I For the State of Bihar : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate --------- 22/Dated:-27.08.2025 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing of the order as contained in Memo No.1720 dated 03.08.2016 issued by 2nd respondent; whereby the case of the petitioner for regularization in service has been rejected. 2025:JHHC:25676 2 3. Though, it is a second round of litigation but the purpose of remitting the case back once again is only that some documents have been produced before me indicating therein that the petitioner was working before the respondent college; as such, interest of justice would be sufficed by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Registrar (respondent No.6) as early as possible in view of the fact that the concerned college, where the petitioner claims to have worked, is a constituent college and the moment the Registrar will receive such representation, he shall verify the records of the case and proceed accordingly and if the case of the petitioner comes within the periphery of the regularization Act, 2015 and as amended in 2019, then necessary order shall be passed. 4. It goes without saying that as the State Counsel submits that the competent authority is respondent No.6/7; as such, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach respondent No.6/7 by filing a fresh representation and the documents which he is relying upon as early as possible. If the said representation reaches the concerned respondent, he shall verify the records of the case and pass an order in view of the applicable rules and regulations and if the claim of the petitioner is found to be genuine, then the consequential benefits be extended to him. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 18 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. It goes without saying that the concerned authority 2025:JHHC:25676 3 shall not be prejudiced by the previous orders. 5. In view of the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ application stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) vikas/-