GHANSHYAM KUMAR SINGH v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY
WPC/6010/2024 · 2026-06-08
Deepak Roshan
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 16547 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 16547 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:16704 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 6010 of 2024
---
1. Ghanshyam Kumar Singh, aged about 45 years, S/o Baban Singh, R/o Village Kumhaila, P.O. Kumhaila, P.S. Sukhpura, District Balia & PIN-277301 (Uttar Pradesh).
2. Sanyogita Mishra, aged about 33 years, D/o Radheshyam Mishra, R/o Veer Kumar Singh Nagar, Bishunpur, Aashram Road, P.O. Jhumri Telaiya, P.S. Jhumri Telaiya & District - Koderma.
3. Soumya Panigrahi, aged about 32 years, D/o Santosh Kumar Panigrahi, R/o Village Gamharia, P.O. Gamharia, P.S. Gamharia & District-Seraikella Kharsawan
4. Nandlal Mandal, aged about 35 years, S/o Shankar Mandal, R/o Village Dhoriya, P.O. Bramsholi, P.S. Chitra & District - Deoghar.
5. Bhuneshwar Rajwar, aged about 40 years, S/o-Manki Rajwar, R/o Village Hendegarha, P.O. Hendegarha, P.S. Charhi & District-Hazaribagh.
6. Fatima Jaffery, aged about 34 years, D/o Late Md. Islam Jaffery, R/o Madina Colony, P.O. Karma, P.S. Jhumri Telaiya & District- Koderma:
7. Shamsul Huda, aged about 34 years, S/o Munshi Raza, R/o Village Rehati, P.O. Trilochan, P.S. Jalalpur, District- Jaunpur & PIN 222136 (Uttar Pradesh).
8. Eqbal Abul Ala, aged about 41 years, S/o Ashfaque Ahmad, R/o Village Chitarpur, P.O. Chitarpur, P.S. Rajrappa & District - Ramgarh.
9. Anzarul Haque Ansari @ Anzarul Haque, aged about 42 years, S/o Kasim Ansari, R/o Village Mohanpur, P.O. Guru Gain, P.S. Burmu & District Ranchi.
10. Uday Kumar Gupta, aged about 35 years, S/o- Khemlal Saw, R/o-Village Badam, P.O. Badam, P.S. Barkagaon & District-Hazaribagh.
11. Anjana Kumari Thakur, aged about 46 years, W/o Rakesh Patralekh, R/o Near Jharkhand Khadi Gram Udyog, Shivpuri, P.O. Bilasi Town, P.S. Deoghar & District Deoghar.
12. Poonam Kumari, aged about 43 years, W/o Dayanand Prasad Yadav, R/o Parmeshwar Dayal Road, Sahab Pokhar, Park More, Baramasiya P.O., P.S. & District- Deoghar.
....Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur & District - Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, School, Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand having office at Project Building, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, School, Education & Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand. having office at Project Building, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi.
2026:JHHC:16704 2
.....Respondents
--
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, A.C to G.A.-III
-- 05/08.06.2026 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is not pressing the case on behalf of petitioner nos. 1,2,5,6,8,10 & 11 due to certain developments during pendency of this writ application; however, he is confining his argument on behalf of rest of the petitioners.
2.
Having regard to the aforesaid submission,
learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to delete the name of those petitioners on whose behalf learned counsel for the petitioner is not pressing this application in course of the day.
3.
With consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today.
4.
Heard the parties.
5.
Petitioners have approached this Court against the order of rejection of their Inter District Transfer under ‘Other Special Circumstance' as per Clause-8(a)(iii) of the Transfer Policy by the respondent-authorities without considering their own policy decision (Annexures-1 & 2).
6.
Learned counsel for the respondents draws the attention of the Court towards counter-affidavit and submits that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition since the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected taking into consideration relevant rules and guidelines. Learned counsel further submits that if at all there is medical exigency, petitioner is at liberty to approach the respondents who shall consider the same in accordance with law.
7.
Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, across the bar, this Court directs the petitioner
2026:JHHC:16704 3
to file fresh representation taking the medical exigency as the ground for transfer which shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law considering the relevant rules and guidelines. Respondents are also
directed to give personal hearing to the petitioner and pass the order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.
8.
Let it be made clear that while giving personal hearing the respondents shall not be prejudiced by the earlier rejection order.
9.
Let a fresh consideration be made assigning concrete and valid reasons for
consideration/non-
consideration of the case of the petitioner for transfer and the same be communicated to the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands
disposed of.
11. Consequently, pending I.A stands closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
8th June, 2026
Jk
Uploaded on
16/06/2026