2026:JHHC:4073 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2324 of 2012 --------- 1. Maheshwar Mahato son of late Thakur Das Mahato, Resident of Village Bara Lapang, P.O. Kukru, P.S. Tiruldih, District- Saraikella Kharsawan (presently posted as Incharge Head Master, Project Girls High School, Gorangkocha, P.O. Gorangkocha, P.S. Ichagarh, District Saraikella, Kharsawan). 2. Smt Pushpa Kumari, wife of Sri Parma Prasad Singh, Resident of Mohalla new Subhash Colony, Road No. 3, Sanjay Path, Dimna, P.O. & P.S. Mango, District-Jamshedpur. (presently posted as Incharge Head Master, Project Girls High School, Gorangkocha, P.O. Gorangkocha, P.S. Ichagarh, District Saraikella, Kharsawan) ......Petitioners Versus 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Govt. of Jhakrhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resource Development Department, Govt. of Jhakrhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District - Ranchi. 4. The Regional Dy. Director of Education, West Singbhum Division, P.O., P.S. & District-Chaibasa. 5. The District Education Officer, Saraikella Kharsawan, P.O., P.S. & District - Saraikella Kharsawan. 6. Sri Vrindavan Gope S/o Late Padmalochan Gope R/o village Kendutadih P.O. Gourangkocha, P.S. Ichagarh, District- Saraikella Kharsawan, Presently Secretary, Project Girls High School, Gourangkocha, Block Ichagarh, Saraikella, Kharsawan. .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : None For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Sushant Kumar, A.C. to S.C.-II --------- 18/Dated:-13.02.2026 1. None appears for the petitioners. 2. From order dated 08.01.2025, it appears that the petitioners were not represented on that day also. Since, the matter is 14 years old, as such, this Court is proceeding to decide the case on the basis of documents available on record. 2026:JHHC:4073 2 3. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for quashing the impugned order as contained in Memo No.241 dated 13.02.2012. 4. After going through the impugned order, it appears that two schools; first is petitioners’ school and another is the contending school represented by respondent No.6 are claiming that their school is the original project school and after going through facts, the Director, Secondary Education-cum-Joint Secretary has passed the reasoned order. 5. It appears that it is more a question of fact than a question of law to be decided for which the appropriate authority is the competent Civil Court and not the High Court to decide the disputed question of fact. 6. Looking to the prayer made in this writ application, I don’t want to interfere with the reasoned order. Perhaps, this is the reason, that the petitioners are now not interested in this case. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) February 13, 2026 vikas/- uploaded 12.03.2026