2026:JHHC:13444-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3218 of 2026 Kharia Mahasabha, Ranchi, through its President Kulbhushan Dung Dung, S/o Vincent Dung Dung, R/o Near Sarkari Kuwan, Lowadih, Upper Kocha, PO-Lowadih, PS-Namkum, District-Ranchi ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 5. The Department of School Education and Literacy, (Directorate of Secondary Education), through its Secretary, having its office at M.D.I Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi ... … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate Mr. Subhas Kongari, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, GA-V ----- Order No. 03 Dated: 06.05.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Kharia Mahasabha – petitioner, purporting to espouse the cause of the Kharia language and the Kharia language speaking people has instituted this petition to challenge the Notification No. 1584 dated 20.05.2025 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) on the ground that it excludes and/or abolishes the posts of teacher in Kharia language and that such exclusion/abolition of the said post is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 3. Mr P.K. Mukhopadhyay, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, at least in the districts of Gumla and Simdega, and 2026:JHHC:13444-DB 2 in some parts of Ranchi, more than 60% of the population speaks the Kharia language. He pointed out that similar notifications issued in 2010 and 2016 referred to teacher posts in the Kharia language. He submitted that there was no good reason to exclude or abolish these posts in the impugned notification dated 20.05.2025, and that such exclusion or abolition is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 4. Mr. Mukhopadhyay submitted that this is a case of discrimination based only on language and such discrimination is brought about without there being any valid reason or principle. He submitted that the burden was on the State to show the variation in circumstances from 2016 to 2025, when, admittedly, the notifications of 2010 and 2016 referred to teachers in the Kharia language. 5. For the above reasons, Mr Mukhopadhyay submitted that the impugned notification dated 20.05.2025 should either be struck down as arbitrary or the reference to teachers in the Kharia language should be restored, so that the charge of discrimination would no longer persist qua the impugned notification. He submitted that such inclusion of teachers in the Kharia language in the impugned notification would be permissible to save the notification from the charge of unconstitutionality. 6. For all the above reasons, Mr Mukhopadhyay submitted that the relief sought in this petition may be made absolute. 7. Mr Jayant Franklin Toppo, learned GA-V, submitted that there was no question of any violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He pointed out that creation or abolition of posts is an 2026:JHHC:13444-DB 3 executive act involving policy. He submitted that generally in such matters, the scope of judicial review is minimal. 8. Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo submitted that in pursuance of orders made in Public Interest Litigations, a committee was constituted and entrusted with the duty of determining the creation and abolition of posts for various subjects/languages, inter alia, based on the number of students enrolled and studying in the secondary level classes of the Government +2 High Schools. The committee so constituted had submitted its report, which is annexed along with the counter affidavit in this matter. This report shows that the number of students opting to study in the Kharia language has dropped to an average of 33 in the Annual Intermediate Arts Examination over the last three years. 9. Mr Toppo submitted that there was a similar reduction in the number of students in certain other languages and subjects as well. Therefore, upon considering the expert committee report and the statistics, a policy decision was made to abolish the posts of teachers for the Kharia language. At the same time, it was decided that should enrollment increase in the future, this decision would be appropriately reviewed. 10. Mr Toppo accordingly submitted that this was not a case of discrimination or violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution but only an executive decision based on a policy. He further submitted that such a policy was formulated after considering the opinions of experts and enrollment statistics. Accordingly, he submitted that the reliefs as prayed for in this petition may not be 2026:JHHC:13444-DB 4 granted, and this petition may be dismissed. 11. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 12. As pointed out by Mr Mukhopadhyay, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the main relief sought in this petition is the inclusion of teachers for the Kharia language in the impugned notification dated 20.05.2025. In other words, the main relief sought in this petition is to challenge the abolition of posts for teachers in the Kharia language and to direct the restoration of such posts as were reflected in the notifications of 2010 and 2016. 13. Mr Mukhopadhyay has contended that the exclusion or abolition of the posts of teachers in the Kharia language violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because this amounts to discrimination based only on language. He submitted that the persons speaking the Kharia language are sought to be discriminated against by abolishing the posts of teachers in the Kharia language, and such discrimination cannot be countenanced under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 14. Therefore, the crucial question to be examined in this petition is whether the abolition of posts of teachers in the Kharia language was ex facie discriminatory and arbitrary, unprincipled and was reached without any material to support the same. 15. While Article 14 deals with the general concept of equality and prohibits the State from denying to any person the equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws, Article 16 is a specific Article that deals with the concept of equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. 2026:JHHC:13444-DB 5 16. Article 16(2) provides that no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence, or any of them, be ineligible for or discriminated against in respect of any employment or office under the State. Crucially, there is no reference to “language” in Article 16(2) of the Constitution. 17. Besides, the injunction of Article 16(2) relates to discrimination on grounds “only” of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence, or any of them. Thus, if the so-called discrimination is based on other factors in addition to the factors listed, then it is possible to argue that the injunction of Article 16(2) is not attracted. 18. In this case, we do not find any violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution on the ground that the impugned notification discriminates against any language or people speaking that language. The impugned notification excludes even other languages or language teachers that were included in the notifications of 2010 and 2016. 19. It is well settled that creation or abolition of a post is an executive function decided mainly as a matter of policy. The scope of judicial review in such matters is minimal, and in the absence of the requisite material, it is not for the court to interpose its own decision on the necessity of creation or abolition of posts. 20. In Dr. N. C. Singhal v. Union of India & Ors., (1980) 3 SCC 29, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that whether a particular post is necessary depends on the exigencies of the situation and administrative necessity. The government is usually a better judge in such matters and must have the power to create or abolish posts 2026:JHHC:13444-DB 6 as needed to meet public needs and requirements. The creation and abolition of posts are matters of government policy, and every government has this power in the interests and necessities of internal administration. 21. In Avas Vikas Sansthan & Anr. Vs. Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineers Assn. & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 132, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it was well settled that the power to abolish a post that may result in the holder thereof ceasing to be a government servant has to be recognised. The need to streamline administration and improve efficiency may induce any State Government to alter the staffing pattern of the civil services, necessitating either an increase or decrease in the number of posts or the abolition of posts. In such an event, the court cannot, by way of a writ of mandamus, direct the employer to continue employing such employees as have been dislodged. [In the present case, we are not concerned with the discontinuance of any teachers based on the impugned notification.] 22. In State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Navneet Verma, (2008) 2 SCC 65, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the power to create or abolish a post rests with the Government. Whether a particular post is necessary depends on the exigencies of the situation and administrative necessity. The creation and abolition of posts are matters of government policy, and every sovereign government has this power in the interests of internal administration. The creation, continuance and abolition of posts are decided by the Government in the interests of administration and the general public. The court 2026:JHHC:13444-DB 7 is least competent, in the face of scanty material, to decide whether the Government acted honestly in creating or refusing to create a post, or whether its decision suffers from mala fides, legal or factual. As long as the decision to abolish the post is taken in good faith, in the absence of material, interference by the court is not warranted. 23. The State has filed a detailed counter affidavit in this matter, and therefore, we deem it appropriate to quote paragraphs nos 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17 of this affidavit for the convenience of reference. “5. That in reply to para 6 & 8 of the writ petition it is most humbly submitted that in light of W.P. (PIL) No. 2375/2024, Taleshwar Mahato and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, which has been filed seeking appointment in a total of 19 subjects, including humanities and regional and tribal subjects, across 510 government +2 high schools within the state, a committee was constituted vide order memo no. 845 dated 11.03.2025. That the said committee was entrusted with the duty of determining the creation of posts for the concerned subjects/languages based on the number of students enrolled and studying in secondary-level classes of government +2 high schools. That the committee also took into account the subjects chosen by the students for instruction, including regional and tribal languages notified by the government. 6. That in reply to para 7 & 9 of the writ petition it is stated that the said committee 2026:JHHC:13444-DB 8 was to undertake a sample survey of the subjects opted by students studying in the secondary-level classes of +2 high schools operating within the state over the past three years. That, after evaluating the necessity of the concerned subject/language in relation to the specific subjects as well as regional and tribal languages of the respective area, the committee submitted its recommendation regarding the creation of new posts and the surrender of vacant 8,900 posts, as well as declaring those posts as dying cadre. 7. That in reply to para 8,9 & 10 of the writ petition, it is respectfully stated that across +2 High Schools, affiliated with JAC Board, it was noted that during the academic years 2022 to 2024, no student from the Science or Commerce streams appearing in the Annual Intermediate Examination opted for Kharia as their Regional Language. Further, it was observed that students from Arts stream appearing in the Annual Intermediate Examination during the same period opted for Kharia in numbers of 25, 27, and 47 respectively, with the three-year average coming to 33. 8. That it is pertinent to mention that vide order dated 29.06.2018 in WPS 3547/2016 Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs State of Jharkhand & Ors. it has been directed by the Hon'ble Court that: "5. In view of the submission made by 2026:JHHC:13444-DB 9 learned Additional Advocate General of the State, we hereby direct the State Government to give proper hearing to the petitioner before the said Committee, if he wants, so that proper narration will be given by him for the need of appointment of teachers for the subjects which are mentioned in the prayer. We, hereby, also direct the State Government to take care the needs of students for the subject, in question by taking appropriate steps in the light of the recommendation to be made by the Committee constituted by it." 9. That in view of the order dated 29.06.2018 passed in W.P(S) No. 3547/2016, Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, as well as the directions issued in W.P. (PIL) No. 2375/2024, Taleshwar Mahato & Others vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, it has been decided by the department, vide Resolution No. 1175 dated 09.04.2025 that: "6. For creation of posts of regional and tribal languages including humanities in government +2 schools, by obtaining the actual number of students enrolled in that subject/language in the last three years in the examination conducted by Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi for Science/Arts/ Commerce from +2 government schools, keeping in view the student: teacher ratio, for re-assessing the need in the changed perspective of better educational and human management, after observing the structure and suggestions of school 2026:JHHC:13444-DB 10 education system, proposed by National Education Policy, 2020, it has been decided to constitute an education system with a developed and strong foundation by restructuring the school education system as 5+3+3+4 under the system of Secondary (14-18 years, Class-09-12) in place of the present 10+2 school education system." 10. That in reply to para 12 of the writ petition it is most humbly stated and submitted that additional schools have been upgraded to Government +2 Schools wherein the posts of Secondary Acharya under the Secondary Acharya Rules, 2025 will also be created. It is further submitted that if a higher number of students are found to be opting for Kharia as a subject in the Annual Intermediate Examination conducted by JAC Board, the appropriate authority shall take a decision regarding the creation of posts for the said subject. 11. That it is most humbly submitted that in consonance with the provisions of the National Education Policy, 2020, the existing High Schools Teachers (Classes 9 and 10) and +2 School Teacher (Classes 11 and 12) cadre have been duly merged and reorganized into a unified structure designated as 'Secondary Acharya' imparting across Classes 9 to 12. 12. That accordingly, a provision has been made enabling Secondary Acharya appointed in such Secondary Schools to impart instruction across the entire range of Classes 9 to 12. That 2026:JHHC:13444-DB 11 considering the academic standards required for teaching at the senior secondary level (Classes 11 and 12), wherein the minimum prescribed educational qualification is a postgraduate degree, it has been deemed appropriate and necessary that the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Secondary Acharya (Class 9 to 12) in the reorganized Secondary Schools be fixed as postgraduate. 13. That it is most humbly submitted that, apart from Ranchi University, no other University offers a Post-Graduate programme in the subject of Kharia. It is further submitted that Ranchi University has only recently commenced the M.A. course in Kharia from the academic year 2022-2023. 14. That it is most humbly submitted that a Post-Graduate degree in the subject of appointment with at least 50% marks from any recognized University and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) from an Institution recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education is required as the minimum educational qualification for appointment in Advertisement No. 02/2025. 16. That in reply to paragraphs 17 & 18 of the Writ Petition, it is respectfully stated that upon examination of +2 High Schools affiliated with the Jharkhand Academic Council, it was found that during the academic years 2022 to 2024, no student appearing in the Annual Intermediate Examination from the Science or 2026:JHHC:13444-DB 12 Commerce streams opted for Kharia as their Regional Language. That it was further observed that students appearing in the Annual Intermediate Examination from the Arts stream during the aforesaid period opted for Kharia as their Regional Language, and that the average number of such students over the said three academic years works out to 33. 17. That in reply to paragraphs 11, 16, 17, 20, 21 & 22 of the Writ Petition, it is respectfully stated that a decision validly taken as a matter of policy does not offend Fundamental Rights under Constitution of India, and therefore the statement made in this paragraph is wholly misconceived. That no prejudice has been caused to the writ petitioner by the respondent State. That, therefore, the grounds raised in the aforesaid paragraphs are irrelevant, misconceived, and are accordingly denied.” 24. We have not referred to the remaining paragraphs because they either refer to the law on the subject or otherwise deal with what the petitioner has pleaded in its petition. 25. From the above-quoted paragraphs of the counter affidavit, which are duly backed by reports of the expert committee, it is apparent that this policy decision for exclusion/abolition was based upon the opinion of the expert committee. Even the expert committee's opinion was based on statistical data and other relevant considerations. There is no question of discrimination or mala fides. The affidavit also states that should the enrollment position improve, the State Government would review its decision 2026:JHHC:13444-DB 13 accordingly. 26. By examining the pleadings in this matter and the material placed with the petition, we are satisfied that no case is made out to infer mala fides or to hold that the decision to exclude or abolish the posts of teachers in the Kharia language is arbitrary, whimsical, unprincipled, or based on no material whatsoever. 27. Rather, the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State and the materials accompanying it show that this decision is based on the opinion of the expert committee, backed by statistical data indicating that, for the last three years, on average, not more than 33 students sought enrolment to study in the Kharia language in the Annual Intermediate Arts Examination. 28. The expert committee report also notes a similar reduction in enrolment patterns for other languages, such as Arabic or Persian. Consequently, even the posts of teachers in these languages were discontinued or abolished. Therefore, this is hardly a case of discrimination based on language or any other impermissible and extraneous factor. 29. The counter affidavit, committee reports, and the statistical data placed on record show that across +2 High Schools, affiliated with JAC Board, it was noted that during the academic years 2022 to 2024, no student from the Science or Commerce streams appearing in the Annual Intermediate Examination opted for Kharia as their Regional Language. 30. The counter-affidavit, committee reports, and the statistical data placed on record also show that, under the provisions of the 2026:JHHC:13444-DB 14 National Education Policy, 2020, the existing High School Teachers (Classes 9 and 10) and +2 School Teacher (Classes 11 and 12) cadre have been duly merged and reorganised into a unified structure designated as 'Secondary Acharya', imparting education across Classes 9 to 12. Further, since the minimum prescribed educational qualification is a postgraduate degree, it has been deemed appropriate and necessary that the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Secondary Acharya (Classes 9 to 12) in the reorganised Secondary Schools be fixed at postgraduate level. 31. The counter-affidavit, committee reports, and the statistical data on record also show that, apart from Ranchi University, no other university offers a postgraduate programme in Kharia. Even Ranchi University has only recently commenced the M.A. course in Kharia, starting in the academic year 2022-2023. 32. All the above factors that have gone into the decision-making process can hardly be described as irrelevant or extraneous. No serious case of mala fide was pleaded or argued. Ultimately, this is a decision involving executive policy. The mere existence of these posts, and their consequent reference in the notifications of 2010 and 2016, cannot be a good ground for insisting on their continuance. Given the minimal scope of judicial review in matters of the creation or abolition of posts, no case is made out to warrant any interference with the impugned notification. 33. Therefore, upon considering the material on record and the law on the subject, we are satisfied that no case is made out to sustain the 2026:JHHC:13444-DB 15 challenges raised in this petition. 34. The writ petition is accordingly liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed without any order for costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) May 06, 2026 Manish/Ritesh N.A.F.R Uploaded on 08.05.2026