2026:JHHC:12760 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.3106 of 2026 ------ Maharshi Paramhans College of Education, having its Office at Village Huhua, Ramgarh Cantt. P.O. Ramgarh Cantt., P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand, through its Secretary Manoj Kumar Agarwalla, son of Sri Ram Chandra Agarwalla, resident of 15 Gola Road, Opposite Basic School & Style Bazar, P.O. Ramgarh Cantt., P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at Yojana Bhawan, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 3. Director, Department of Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at Yojana Bhawan, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 4. The Vice-Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, having its office at Sindoor, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh. 5. The Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, having its office at Sindoor, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mrs. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Sharon Toppo, Advocate ------ 02/ 29.04.2026 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner – College has challenged the inspection report of the Inspection Committee, which according to them, has prejudiced them. 3. The petitioner – College feels that on the basis of the said report, as it is, the affiliation by the Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag, will not be granted to the petitioner – College. 2026:JHHC:12760 2 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner – College submits that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner – College to deal with the inspection report and to put forth their case, which they dispute. He submits that the inspection report should not be accepted by the University, as it is without giving even an opportunity to rebut the materials which are against them. 5. The affiliation of the College has to be granted by the University, for which, in terms of the procedure, an inspection report has been prepared. 6. The petitioner – College is challenging some of the aspects of the said inspection report. The said inspection report is finally to be accepted or rejected by the University. The said stage has not yet arrived. 7. Thus, if the University wants to rely upon the said report / some of the portion of the said report against the petitioner – College, it is expected that the University will give an opportunity to the petitioner – College to meet the objections which have been raised in the said report and which the University wants to rely upon. 8. It is not necessary that the University will completely accept the report. It is the discretion of the University to accept or reject the report or any part of it. 9. The University is expected to take a decision within a period of eight weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 29th April, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 12.05.2026