Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10839 (JHR)

KHEMNATH MAHTO v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

WPC/302/2026 · 2026-01-22

Sri Ananda Sen

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:1824 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No.302 of 2026 ----- Khemnath Mahto, aged about 58 years, Son of Kaila Mahto, Resident Of H.N.48, Karam Tola, Near Kisan Bhawan, P.O Kaitha, P.S. & District Ramgarh. … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, having its office at MD1 Building, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi. 3. The Director, Department of Higher Education, having its office at MDI Building, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi. 4. The District Education Officer, Hazaribagh C.T.S. Colony, PO- Boddam Bazar & P.S-Sadar Police Station, Dist-Hazaribagh. 5. The Secretary, Managing Committee, Jharkhand Inter College, Hosir, P.O.-Dari (Giddi "C"), Block-Dari, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 6. Shri Ajay Kumar Verma, Principal-In Charge, Jharkhand Inter College, Hosir, P.O.-Dari (Giddi "C"), Block-Dari, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Advocate For the State : Ms. Komal Tiwary, AC to AG …...... 02 /22.01.2026: Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was allowed to work as In-charge Principal but now the petitioner has been removed. 3. From the order which is impugned, that is removal of the petitioner as In-charge Principal, I find that there is no allegation leveled against the petitioner by the respondents. Thus, the order is not stigmatic. 4. There is no substantive post as “In-charge Principal”. It is merely an interim arrangement over which the petitioner has no 2026:JHHC:1824 2 substantive right. To be an “In-charge” is not a substantive right. 5. When no substantive right is created which can be said to have been infringed, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 08.08.2025. 6. Thus, this writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 22.01.2026 Tanuj/CP-2 Uploaded on 28.01.2026