2026:JHHC:15331 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5699 of 2025 ….….. Sucharita Mahato, aged about 56 years, wife of Kiran Chandra Mahto, resident of Baramasiya, Bokaro, P.O.- Sardaha, P.S. Pindrajora, District-East Bokaro, Jharkhand. …. Petitioners VERSUS 1. The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative and Reforms Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. 2. The Secretary Department of Personal, Training, Reforms and Official Language, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. 3. The Director, Directorate of Secondary Education, Department of School, Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at MDI Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi (Jharkhand). 4. The Jharkhand Academic Council, through its Chairman, having its office at Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi (Jharkhand). 5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Academic Council, having its office at Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, Namkum, P.Ο. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) 6. The District Education Officer, Giridih, having its office at Giridih, P.O & P.S.- Gioridih, District-Giridih ..... Respondent(s) ….….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Adv Mr. Akash Ajit Kumar, Adv Ms. ⁠Satakchhi Priya Verma, Adv Mr. Niladri Shekhar Mukharji, Advocate Mrs. Sandhya Singh, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II For the Resp.-JSSC : M/s. Sanjoy Piprawall, Prince Kumar, Rakesh Ranjan, Jay Prakash, Advocates For the Resp.-JAC : Ms. Richa Sachita, Advocate Ms. Risheeta Singh, Advocate ….….. 2026:JHHC:15331 2 C.A.V. ON: 06/05/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:15/05/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: (a) For quashing of the Order dated 25th July 2025 vide Memo No. 10/M-16-10/2025 A/4394 i.e. Annexure-10 passed by Ld. Praveen Kumar Toppo, Secretary Department of Personal, Training, Reforms and Official Language (Respondent No.2) wherein representation for reinstatement made in compliance of the order dated 24.04.2025 passed in L.P.A. No. 720 of 2023 to the post of Assistant Teacher in Music has been rejected. (b) For quashing of the order in Memo No. 1674/Giridih dated 31.07.2020 i.e. Annexure-7 wherein the petitioner has been terminated/relieved issued under the Signature of District Education Officer, Giridih during pendency of the earlier Writ Petition being W.P.(S) No. 1796 of 2020 which was challenged through I.A. No.4315 of 2020 and was allowed vide order dated 27.08.2020; (c) For quashing of Resolution No. 2436 dated 14.09.2022 i.e. Annexure-8 taken by the Department of School Education and Literacy (Directorate of Secondary Education) wherein Sangeet Prabhakar (Sixth Year) Degree issued by Prayag Sangeet Samiti, Allahabad bearing 500 marks and Sangeet Bisharad (Complete 5th Year) Degree from Pracheen Kala Kendra, Chandigarh, bearing 300 marks as equivalent to graduation. Without considering the fact that the petitioner had been awarded Sangeet Prabhakar (Sixth Year) Degree issued by Prayag Sangeet Samiti, Allahabad when the full marks of the course had been 300 and not 500 as the petitioner had been awarded the degree way back in the year 1985 [Sangeet Prabhakar (Vocal)] and in 1989 [Sangeet Prabhakar (Najrul Geet)] certificate awarded in 1991, when the curriculum of the course had a full marks of 300. Thus, discriminating against the petitioner and in violation of her Rights Under Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India; d) For direction commanding upon the respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner in her post with all consequential benefits. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Jharkhand Academic Council published Advertisement No. 93 of 2011 for appointment to the post of Assistant 2026:JHHC:15331 3 Teacher in High Schools, including Music Teacher. The petitioner, possessing the qualification of Sangeet Prabhakar from Prayag Sangeet Samiti, Allahabad, applied for the post of Music Teacher and was declared successful, and was issued provisional appointment letter vide Memo No. 2475 dated 29.07.2015. Thereafter, upon submission of her qualification documents, her service was confirmed vide Memo No. 3346 dated 18.09.2019 with effect from 03.08.2017. 4. Subsequently, vide Memo No. 842 dated 28.05.2020, it was communicated that certificates issued by Prayag Sangeet Samiti, Allahabad and Pracheen Kala Kendra, Chandigarh were not recognized by the Central/State Government/UGC, pursuant to which show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter her services were terminated vide Memo No. 1674/Giridih dated 31.07.2020. The petitioner challenged the said action in W.P.(S) No. 1796 of 2020. 5. During the pendency of the matter, the Department of School Education and Literacy issued Resolution No. 2436 dated 14.09.2022 granting equivalence to Sangeet Prabhakar of Prayag Sangeet Samiti only where the course comprised 500 marks, and to Sangeet Bisharad of Pracheen Kala Kendra comprising 300 marks. 2026:JHHC:15331 4 Hence, the petitioner was excluded solely because her Sangeet Prabhakar qualification, obtained prior to the revised marking pattern of 2007–08, consisted of 300 marks. Thereafter, W.P.(S) No. 1796 of 2020 was dismissed vide order dated 04.10.2023 against which the petitioner preferred L.P.A. No. 720 of 2023, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the competent authority for consideration of her qualification and reinstatement. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted her representation, but the same was rejected vide order dated 25.07.2025. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present writ application. 6. Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the exclusion of the petitioner from the benefit of Resolution No. 2436 dated 14.09.2022 is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and unsustainable in the eye of law. It has been submitted that the revised course structure of Sangeet Prabhakar comprising 500 marks was introduced by Prayag Sangeet Samiti only from the academic session 2007–08. Prior thereto, the very same qualification of Sangeet Prabhakar was awarded on the basis of 300 marks. Thus, persons like the petitioner, who had obtained Sangeet Prabhakar prior to 2007–08, 2026:JHHC:15331 5 cannot be excluded merely because the total marks then prescribed were 300 and not 500. 7. It has been further submitted that a comparison of the mark-sheets issued by Prayag Sangeet Samiti prior to 2007–08 and after 2007–08 would clearly demonstrate that the basic nature, character and substance of the qualification remained the same. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as less qualified merely because she obtained the qualification before the change in marks distribution. 8. Learned Senior Counsel lastly submitted that the impugned resolution has only considered the Sangeet Prabhakar degree issued by Prayag Sangeet Samiti wherein total marks consisted of 500; only on the basis of judgment passed by Patna High Court in LPA No. 1642 of 2013 wherein it was held that Sangeet Prabhakar degree issued by the Prayag Sangeet Samiti, Allahabad, if it is for full 500 marks would be considered as a degree equivalent to Graduation in music. However, the matter before the Patna High Court was pertaining only to candidate having degree issued by Prayag Sangeet Samiti for Sangeet Prabhakar after 2007-08 and not prior to that; as such, the reliance placed on order passed in LPA No. 1642 of 2013 ignoring the findings of Justice (Retd.) 2026:JHHC:15331 6 S.C. Agarwal Commission for exclusion of the petitioner is misplaced, arbitrary and the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement. It has also been argued that even if reliance is placed on the Patna High Court judgement rendered in LPA No. 1642 of 2013, in the context of the petitioner who obtained the same degree from the same institution or organization i.e. Prayag Sangeet Samiti, full marks prior to 2006-07 or at the time when the petitioner passed out, had been 300, although the curriculum of the course and papers from the examination had been exactly same, thus, the impugned resolution which very much recognizes the degree obtained from Prayag Sangeet Samiti cannot be restricted to mean that it recognizes the degrees obtained from the institution after 2007-08 only, particularly when the said resolution only considered the marks allocated at the examination leading to degree, and did not consider any other exception for such degrees which were awarded from the same institution prior to 2007-08 or during the period 1985 or 1989 when the petitioner had obtained the degree. 9. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, relying upon the counter affidavit, submitted that as per Clause 9(1)(iv) of the Graduate 2026:JHHC:15331 7 Trained Teacher Appointment Rules, 2015, the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Music Teacher requires the candidate to have passed the matriculation examination from a University or Board recognized by the State Government or Central Government and to possess a Bachelor’s Degree in Music or an equivalent qualification from a University recognized by the State Government or Central Government; but however in terms of Departmental Resolution No. 2436 dated 14.09.2022, the State Government has relaxed the eligibility conditions and has although, recognized the degrees obtained from Prayag Sangeet Samiti but as per the said resolution the degree must be on the full marks of 500 at the examination leading to the degree. 10. Learned Counsel for the State contended that since the petitioner’s qualification of Sangeet Prabhakar which she obtained from Prayag Sangeet Samiti had been on 300 marks at the examination leading to degree and not 500 as provided in the Resolution dated 14.09.2022, thus the case of the petitioner is not covered under the said Resolution; and as such she cannot claim the benefit of equivalence. 11. Learned counsel finally submitted that the representation of the petitioner has been rightly rejected 2026:JHHC:15331 8 by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha vide order dated 25.07.2025, as the petitioner’s qualification does not fall within the ambit of Departmental Resolution No. 2436 dated 14.09.2022. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that the main grievance of the petitioner is that she has been wrongly excluded from the ambit of resolution no 2436 dated 14.09.2022 by creating a class within class and her services have been wrongly terminated vide order dated 31.07.2020 and her representation for reinstatement has wrongly been rejected vide order dated 25.07.2025. 13. The main issues which are to be decided by this Court are as follows: i. Whether the exclusion of the petitioner from the ambit of resolution no. 2436 dated 14.09.2022 is legally sustainable and if not the said resolution shall be interfered with to the extent it excludes the eligibility of the petitioner only on the basis of marks at the final examination from Prayag Sangeet Samiti leading to degree of Sangeet Prabhakar ? ii. Whether the order dated 31.07.2020 issued vide memo no. 1674/Giridih and order dated 25.07.2025 issued vide memo no. 10/M-16-10/2025 A/439 A deserve to be quashed ? 14. With regard to the first issue, it appears that the Department of School Education and Literacy (Directorate of Secondary Education) vide Resolution No. 2026:JHHC:15331 9 2436 dated 14.09.2022 granted equivalence to Degree awarded by Prayag Sangeet Samiti, Allahabad in Sangeet Prabhakar bearing 500 marks and Pracheen Kala Kendra, Chandigarh bearing 300 marks to graduation. 15. Ld. Sr. Counsel representing the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner had been awarded the same Sangeet Prabhakar Degree issued by the Prayag Sangeet Samiti, Allahabad for the same curriculum; the only difference is that the petitioner was awarded the degree way back in the year 1985 [Sangeet Prabhakar (Vocal) and 1989 (Sangeet Prabhakar (Narjul Geet)] when the course curriculum consisted of 300 marks. 16. The Course Curriculum with 500 marks was introduced only in the year 2007-08 and on perusal of Annexure-12 of the writ application it becomes crystal clear that in order to obtain recognition from UGC, the marks for the same courses were increased from 300 to 500. 17. Fact, however, remains that it is not a case or contention of anyone that Prayag Sangeet Samiti has got UGC recognition or is a recognized university, thus Annexure-12 can be taken to understand only this aspect that after 2007-08 marks for the curriculum leading to 2026:JHHC:15331 10 Sangeet Prabhakar from Prayag Sangeet Samiti had been 500 and prior to 2007-08 it was 300 with no difference in the curriculum or papers at the examination leading to the same degree. As it transpires from Annexure-12, the manager of the music committee had taken a decision to increase the marks from 300 to 500 comprising 150 marks each for practical and viva voce and 100 marks each for Written Paper-I and Written Paper-II without any change in the curriculum. For ready reference the distribution of marks before and after 2007-08 are reproduced herein below: वष[ ĤेिÈटकल èटेज मौͨखक ͧलͨखत 1 ͧलͨखत - 2 कु ल योग 2006-07 100 100 50 50 300 2007-08 150 150 100 100 500 18. From perusal of the above, it becomes crystal clear that prior to 2007–08, the course comprised 300 marks, out of which 200 marks were assigned to practical including viva voce and 50 marks each were assigned to Written Paper-I and Written Paper-II. After 2007–08, while the nomenclature and curriculum substantially remained the same; the total marks were increased to 500, comprising 150 marks each for practical and viva 2026:JHHC:15331 11 voce and 100 marks each for Written Paper-I and Written Paper-II. 19. It further appears that Justice S.C. Agrawal commission on page 42 of its report categorically came to the finding that Sangeet Prabhakar (the degree which the petitioner holds) and Diploma in Sangeet Visharad have to be treated as equivalent to graduate qualification in Music. For ready reference the relevant portion of report is quoted herein below: “For the purpose of considering the minimum qualifications in Music. I would proceed on the basis that degree of Sangeet Praveen and Diploma in ‘Sangeet Bhaskar’ are equivalent to Post Graduate qualification in Music and the degree of ‘Sangeet Prabhakar’ and Diploma in Sangeet Visharad have to be treated as equivalent to Graduate Qualification in Music.” 20. Further, the abovementioned finding of Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission Report has attained finality vide judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh1. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the judgment is quoted herein below: “73… Conclusions: 2. The report of the Commission of Enquiry of Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agrawal (Retired), is accepted and all objections filed against the said report are rejected.” 21. It is manifest from the above that the degree of “Sangeet Prabhakar” and diploma of “Sangeet Visharad” 1 (2005) 9 SCC 129 2026:JHHC:15331 12 are treated as equivalent to a “Bachelor Graduation in Music”. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the respondent authorities that the petitioner does not possess the required qualification cannot stand. 22. It further appears that the respondent authorities for the reasons best known to them without taking into account of the findings of the Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission have only relied upon the judgment rendered by Patna High Court passed in LPA No. 1642 of 2013 wherein the matter pertained only to Sangeet Prabhakar degree issued by Prayag Sangeet Samiti, Allahabad from 2007-08 when the marks were increased from 300 to 500; as such, the reliance placed by the respondent authorities upon LPA No. 1642 of 2013 and only recognizing Sangeet Prabhakar degree only if it was for full 500 marks and excluding the candidate who obtained the same degree from the same institution prior to 2007-08 does not hold water. 23. Therefore, this Court holds that the respondents created an artificial and impermissible class within a class amongst candidates holding the very same qualification of Sangeet Prabhakar from Prayag Sangeet Samiti, Allahabad, merely on the basis of whether the said qualification was obtained prior to or after the 2026:JHHC:15331 13 academic session 2007–08. Such classification, founded only upon the change in the total marks from 300 to 500, despite the essential nature, curriculum and character of the qualification remaining substantially the same, has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, namely, determination of equivalence for appointment to the post of Music Teacher. The exclusion of pre-2007–08 Sangeet Prabhakar degree holders is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 24. The first issue is answered accordingly, and it is held that the exclusion of the petitioner and other similarly situated from the ambit of Resolution No. 2436 dated 14.09.2022 is unsustainable in law. This Court holds that the said Resolution calls for interference to the extent it excludes the eligibility of the petitioner merely on the basis of the total marks prescribed in the final examination conducted by Prayag Sangeet Samiti leading to the degree of Sangeet Prabhakar. This Court further holds that Resolution No. 2436 dated 14.09.2022, which otherwise recognizes the degree of Sangeet Prabhakar awarded by Prayag Sangeet Samiti with 500 marks as an equivalent qualification for the posts in question, shall also be read to recognize the Sangeet Prabhakar degree awarded by Prayag Sangeet Samiti with 300 marks, as 2026:JHHC:15331 14 obtained by the petitioner. 25. Now coming to the second issue, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, it is evident that the exclusion of the petitioner from the ambit and benefit of Resolution No. 2436 dated 14.09.2022 is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and dehors the settled principles of law. Once such exclusion has been held to be legally unsustainable, the consequential order dated 31.07.2020, whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated, as well as the order dated 25.07.2025, whereby her representation seeking reinstatement was rejected by relying upon Resolution No. 2436 dated 14.09.2022, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and are accordingly liable to be, and is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 26. The second issue is also answered in positive. 27. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 28. Consequently, the instant writ petition stands allowed. Pending I.A. if any are also disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:15 /05/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 23.05.2026