2026:JHHC:1121 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 831 of 2024 1. Zafar Shahab, son of Wasi Ahmad, resident of House No. 1/26, Rasaldar Nagar, Doranda, Ranchi 2. Navin Kumar, son of Kedar Nath, resident of behind ‘Uma Laxmi Niwas’, Ganpat Nagar, Bahu Bazar, Chutia, Ranchi 3. Bimal Kishore Prasad, son of Dr. N.K. Prasad, resident of 1/26, Akancha Enclave, Tetar Toli, P.O.- RMCH, P.S.- Bariyatu, District- Ranchi 4. Sanjay Kumar, son of Sheo Bachan Sah, resident of K.K. Singh Colony, Plot no. 364, Chirachas, P.O.- Jamtara, P.S.- Chas, District- Bokaro … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sri L. Khiangte, Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. Sri Rahul Purwar, Additional Chief Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. Sri Praveen Kumar Toppo, Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 5. Sri Sunil Kumar, Director of Technical Education, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 6. Akilur Rahman, Principal, Government Polytechnic, Ranchi 7. Dr. Ramesh Kumar, Principal, Government Women’s Polytechnic, P.O. & P.S.- Balidih, Near Garga Dam, District- Bokaro …. … Opp. Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioners : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate Ms. Nidhi Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G.-II Order No. 19 Dated: 16.01.2026 The present contempt petition has been filed for initiation of contempt proceeding as against the opposite parties alleging willful violation of order dated 20.12.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5474 of 2021. 2. Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-II, while referring to resolution as contained in memo no. 977 dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure-A to the supplementary show cause affidavit dated 16.01.2026 filed on behalf of the opposite party nos. 3 & 5) submits that vide the said resolution, the petitioners have been regularized in 2026:JHHC:1121 2 service and hence, the order passed by this Court has now been complied. 3. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said resolution cannot be said to be an order of regularization of the petitioners in service as they have been regularized from the date of issuance of the said resolution. 4. Be that as it may. Since in pursuance of the aforesaid order of this Court, the opposite party no. 3 has issued the aforesaid resolution taking the petitioners in regular establishment, there is no need to further proceed in the present contempt matter. 5. The contempt proceeding as against the opposite parties is hereby dropped. 6. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of. 7. The petitioners are, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse as permissible under law against the resolution as contained in memo no.977 dated 14.11.2025 issued by the opposite party no. 3. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) January 16, 2026 Ritesh/ Uploaded on 17.01.2026