2025:JHHC:23737 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 451 of 2025 Meri Malto, aged about 40 years, wife of Late Lal Mohan Malto, Resident of Village-Chhota Boarijore, P.O.+P.S.-Boarijore, District- Godda. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Sri Jishan Kamar, The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O. and P.S.- Godda, District-Godda. … … Opp. Parties/Contemnors. --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC II --- 08/14.08.2025 1. This contempt proceeding has been initiated against opposite parties/contemnors for their wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 23.04.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6091 of 2023 by this Court. 2. As directed vide order dated 01.08.2025, the records have been produced in original by the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by stating that the petitioner does not have degree duly recognized by the State. He submits that the petitioner was having matriculation degree from Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth, Allahabad which is not a recognized institution. 3. The learned counsel has also submitted that in writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6091 of 2023 which was disposed of by order dated 23.04.2024, no counter affidavit as such was filed but the petitioner was directed to approach respondent No.2 along with the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No. 3894 of 2021 and other analogous cases wherein it was held that the requirement to obtain Class X degree from any institution in the State of Jharkhand was unreasonable. The learned counsel submits that even if the degree outside the State of 2025:JHHC:23737 2 Jharkhand is to be taken into consideration by virtue of the order passed in W.P.(C) 3894 of 2021 then also it has to be seen as to whether the degree is duly recognized by the State or not. He submits that the reason for rejection is that the degree is not duly recognized. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the rejoinder he has placed on record certain documents to show that the degree from Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth, Allahabad is a recognized degree. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, now it appears that the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner has not been rejected on the ground that the degree had been obtained from outside the State of Jharkhand rather the reason is that as per the opposite party, the degree from Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth, Allahabad is not duly recognized by the authorities in the State of Jharkhand. 6. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined any further in this contempt proceeding. However, the right is reserved with the petitioner to take appropriate steps as may be permissible under law. 7. A copy of the reasoned order dated 24.09.2024, which has been found in the record as produced, be provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner by the learned counsel for the State accordingly. 8. Accordingly this contempt proceeding is dropped. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Rakesh/-